Court finds assessment file transfer notification flawed, directs reconsideration with fair process and personal hearing. Stay on transfer pending objections.

The Court held that the notification transferring assessment files from the 2nd respondent to the 3rd respondent was unsustainable due to procedural deficiencies. The 4th respondent was directed to reconsider petitioner's objections, ensuring a fair process with a personal hearing within two months. Further proceedings on the transfer were stayed pending the decision on objections. The judgment emphasized procedural fairness without delving into the case's merits.

---

---

Issues involved: Transfer of assessment files u/s 127(1) of the IT Act, 1961; Fair and reasonable exercise of quasi-judicial power by the 4th respondent; Consideration of objections raised by the petitioner.

Transfer of Assessment Files: The petitioner, an assessee to income-tax, requested transfer of files to Delhi due to administrative reasons. Despite filing returns in Delhi and completion of assessment there, notifications were issued by the 2nd and 4th respondents proposing transfer of files to the 3rd respondent. The petitioner objected to these transfers, citing ongoing assessments in Delhi.

Quasi-Judicial Power: The High Court emphasized that the power of transfer under s. 127(1) of the IT Act is quasi-judicial and must be exercised fairly and reasonably. The 4th respondent's actions were scrutinized, noting that objections raised by the petitioner were not adequately considered before issuing the transfer notification.

Consideration of Objections: The Court found that the 4th respondent did not sufficiently address the objections raised by the petitioner in Ext. P5 before issuing the transfer notification in Ext. P6. The lack of reference to these objections in the notification raised concerns about the fairness of the decision-making process.

Judgment: The Court ruled that the notification transferring the assessment files of the petitioner from the 2nd respondent to the 3rd respondent was not sustainable due to procedural deficiencies. The 4th respondent was directed to reconsider the objections raised by the petitioner and make a decision with a personal hearing within two months. Further proceedings related to the transfer of files were ordered to be put on hold until a decision was reached on the objections. The Court clarified that the judgment did not delve into the merits of the case, focusing solely on the procedural aspects.

---