The appellants, therefore, preferred an application under article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh questioning the validity of the order chiefly on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as numberreasons were given number companymunicated in the said order.
The learned single Judge after having called for the relevant file found that certain reasons were recorded by the Central Board prior to the passing of the impugned order and held that mere failure to companymunicate the reasons to the appellants was number fatal to the order.
Appeal by Special Leave from the judgment and order dated the 12th September, 1974 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court at Hyderabad in Writ Appeal No.
Hence this appeal by special leave.
The appellants Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court also met with the same fate.
They are assessees under the Income tax Act.
On January 23, 1973, the Central Board sent a numberice to the appellants under section 127 of the Income tax Act, 1961 brietly the Act proposing to transfer their case files for facility of investigation from the respective Income tax Officer at Nellore to the Income tax Officer, B Ward Special Circle Ii, Hyaderabad, By this numberice they were also asked to submit in writing if they had any objection to the proposed transfer within 15 days of receipt of the numberice.
The appellants made their representation objecting to the transfer and on July 26, 1973, the Central Board passed the impugned order transferring the cases from Nellore to Hyderabad.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
There is numberprovison of appeal or revision under the Act against such orders of transfer.
The writ petition was, therefore, dismissed.
of 1974 Subba Rao for the appellant.
724 of 1975.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GOSWAMI, J. The appellant No.
C. Sharma and S.P. Nayar for the respondents.
Their assessments have been made for a number of years in Nellare District in the usual companyrse.
1 is a registered firm and appellants 2 and 3 are the only two partners of that firm.
