Bhiiai(C.g v. Respondents Commissioner Of Income Tax & Others

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (T) NO. 993 OF 2010 PETITIONERRajendra Kumar Shivare Versus RESPONDENTSCommissionerofIncomeTax&Others (Writ petition[under][ Articie][ 226][ of][ the][ Constitution][ of][ india)] Singie Bench: Hon’bie Shri Agnihotri, J. §atish K. Present :—Shri Anup Mazumdar, Advocate for the petitioner.Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, Advocate for the respondents. 1. 3. . tORDER (ORAL)(Passed[on][ this][ 5th][ day][ orJuiy,][ 2010)] Chaiiengeinthispetitionis to the impugnednotification dated16/7/2007(Annexure—P/1)wherebytheAssistantCommissionerof income Tax (Admn.)‘bynotificationNo.3of2007—08 transferred the case from the assessment wardNo.5to ward No.1.The facts,innutsheii,for adjudication of the case, are that theAssistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Admn.) by notificationNo.3 of 2007-08 dated 16—7—2007 transferred the case from theassessment ward No.5 to ward No.1.Thereafter, the petitionermade an application dated 22—10-2009 for transfer of his casefromwardNo.1towardNo.5.TheDeputyincomeTaxCommissioner(Headquarter)(Admn.)rejectedtheappiicationofthepetitionerbyorderdated14—1-2010hoidingthattheCommissioner has power to transfer the assessment ward fromonetoanotherwithinthesamecitywithoutaffordinganopportunity of hearing.ShriMajumdar,learnedcounselappearingforthepetitioner,submits that the order transferring the ward has been passedinabsenceofthepetitioner,withoutanycommunicationandwithout anynotice.Shri Mazumdar further submits that eventhe transfer order was not communicated to him. \. \ On the other hand, Shri Shrivastava, learned counsel appearingfor therespondentsNo.1&2,submits that under sub-section“the(3)of Section127 of the Income Tax Act,1961(for[short]Act,196M nonoticeisrequired,if the assessment case hasbeentransferredfromtheoneassessingofficer-tootherassessingofficer within the same city,locality or place.in the‘case onhand, wardNo.5 and wardNo.1/are within the samecity i.e. Bhilai.Thus, no information/notice is required.Learnedcounseinextsubmitsthatif"‘thewardhasbeentransferred,other assessingofficer, whois having jurisdiction, can assessand pass appropriate order. 4. i have heard learned counsei appearing for the parties, perusedthe pteadings and thedocuments appended thereto. 6.‘Sub-section(3)ofSection127oftheAct,1961readsasunder: “127(3)Nothinginsub—section(1)[.or]sub-section(2)'shallbedeemedtorequireanysuchopportunitytobe‘givenwherethetransferisfromanyAssessingOfficerorAssessingOfficers(whetherwithorwithoutconcurrentjurisdiction)toanyotherAssessingOfficerorAssessingOfficers(whetherwithorwithoutconcurrent jurisdiction) and the officesofsuchofficersaresituatedinthesame city, locality or place.” There is no dispute that the assessing officer has been changed by transfer of the case from the assessment ward No.5 to wardNo.1,situatedatthe samecityi.e.['Bhilai.]If theassessingofficer is othenNise competent to assess the matter, there is noillegibility or irregularity in view of the provisions of Section 127(3)[of][ the][ Act,][ 1961.]The contention of the petitioner that noticeofthetransferofthecaseismandatoryisnoticedtoberejected, as bare perusal of the provisions ofthe Act, 1961 doesnot provide for any notice or intimation.in the case onhand,theassessmentofthepetitionerhasbeentransferredfromward No.5 to wardNo.1within the samecity,locality or placei.e. Bhilai. There is no dispute that the assessing officer has been changed by transfer of the case from the assessment ward No.5 to wardNo.1,situatedatthe samecityi.e.['Bhilai.]If theassessingofficer is othenNise competent to assess the matter, there is noillegibility or irregularity in view of the provisions of Section 127(3)[of][ the][ Act,][ 1961.]The contention of the petitioner that noticeofthetransferofthecaseismandatoryisnoticedtoberejected, as bare perusal of the provisions ofthe Act, 1961 doesnot provide for any notice or intimation.in the case onhand,theassessmentofthepetitionerhasbeentransferredfromward No.5 to wardNo.1within the samecity,locality or placei.e. Bhilai. ContentionofShriMazumdar,learnedcounselappearingforthepetitionerthatsincethecasehasbeenrestoredtotheoriginaifile,the same assessingofficer aloneis competent toreassessthecasedeservestoberejected,asanyotherassessing officer can assess the matter within the same city.itisnotnecessarytoassessthe caseby the sameassessingward.in View of administrative exigency and other reasons, theassessment ward can be changed by the competent authority.TheCommissioner/DeputyCommissionermaytransferthecase from one ward to other ward for reassessment.Forthereasonsmentionedhereinabove,thepetitionwithregard to transfer of case from ward No.1to ward No.5 is bereftof merit.10.In the result, the writ petition fails andis hereby dismissed.Noorder asto costs.Sd/—SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI K. AGNIHOTRI AGNIHOTRI'GowriJud’ge Sd/—SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI K. AGNIHOTRI AGNIHOTRI'lJud’ge