Place of assessment under income-tax law upheld where objections were heard and Board direction was not a statutory transfer.

An order directing that an assessee's case be assessed at Hyderabad was treated as a direction to make over the case, not as a transfer under section 5(7A) or an allocation under section 5(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 that would exclude determination of the place of assessment under section 64(3) read with section 64(5). The proviso to section 64(3) was satisfied because the assessee was given repeated to object, submitted written representations, and those objections were considered; a personal hearing before both Commissioners was not required. The determination of Hyderabad as the place of assessment was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an order placing the assessee's case at Hyderabad could be said to fall under section 5(2) or section 5(7A) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 so as to exclude determination under section 64(3) read with section 64(5); (ii) Whether the assessee was afforded the opportunity contemplated by the proviso to section 64(3) before the place of assessment was determined.

Issue (i): Whether an order placing the assessee's case at Hyderabad could be said to fall under section 5(2) or section 5(7A) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 so as to exclude determination under section 64(3) read with section 64(5).

Analysis: The statutory scheme was read to distinguish between allocation of work among Commissioners under section 5(2) and transfer of cases between Income-tax Officers under section 5(7A). The impugned order did not transfer the case from one Income-tax Officer to another, nor did it amount to an allocation contemplated by section 5(2) in the sense relevant to section 64(5). The Court held that the Board's order was only a direction to make over the case for assessment at Hyderabad and did not attract the disabling effect of section 64(5)(a) or section 64(5)(b).

Conclusion: The order did not bar determination of the place of assessment under section 64(3), and the challenge on that ground failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessee was afforded the opportunity contemplated by the proviso to section 64(3) before the place of assessment was determined.

Analysis: The proviso required an opportunity to represent views, not a compulsory personal hearing or simultaneous hearing before both Commissioners. The assessee had been repeatedly called upon to state objections, had in fact submitted representations, and those objections were considered before the final determination. The Court held that consultation between the Commissioners and consideration of the written objections satisfied the statutory requirement.

Conclusion: The statutory requirement of opportunity under the proviso to section 64(3) was complied with, and the determination of Hyderabad as the place of assessment was valid.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed because the determination of the place of assessment at Hyderabad was upheld and no jurisdictional infirmity or breach of the statutory opportunity requirement was shown.

Ratio Decidendi: A determination of the place of assessment under section 64(3) is valid if the assessee is given a fair opportunity to represent objections, and such determination is not displaced by a Board order that is not a transfer within the meaning of section 5(7A) or an allocation of the kind contemplated by section 5(2) and section 64(5).

---