Section 127(3) transfer within the same locality needs no hearing or recorded reasons, and office transfer remains valid.

A transfer of assessment jurisdiction between assessing officers situated in the same city, locality or place under section 127(3) of the Income-tax Act is an administrative transfer that does not require prior notice, hearing, or recorded reasons. The Court distinguished transfers under section 127(1) and section 127(2), where different statutory safeguards apply, and followed binding Supreme Court precedent on the proviso to section 127(3). The challenge to a Joint Commissioner holding additional charge also failed because the transfer was to the assessing office, not the individual officer, and the Joint Commissioner fell within the definition of assessing officer. The transfer order was upheld as valid.

---

---

Issues: Whether a transfer of assessment jurisdiction within the same city, locality or place under section 127(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 required prior notice, hearing, or recorded reasons, and whether the transfer to a Joint Commissioner holding additional charge was invalid.

Analysis: The transfer challenged in the writ petition was squarely within section 127(3), which expressly excludes the requirement of giving the assessee an opportunity of hearing when the transfer is between assessing officers whose offices are situated in the same city, locality or place. The Court distinguished the authorities relied on by the petitioner as they concerned transfers under sections 127(1) or 127(2), where the statutory requirements are different. Relying on the binding precedent of the larger Bench of the Supreme Court, the Court held that in a transfer falling under the proviso corresponding to section 127(3), neither prior hearing nor recording of reasons is necessary. The objection that the transferee officer was a Joint Commissioner holding additional charge was rejected because the transfer was to the assessing office and not to the individual officer, and the definition of assessing officer included the Joint Commissioner.

Conclusion: The transfer order was valid in law and the challenge based on absence of notice, reasons, or alleged lack of power in the transferee authority failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A transfer of a case between assessing officers situated in the same city, locality or place under section 127(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is an administrative transfer that does not require prior hearing or recorded reasons, and the validity of the transfer depends on the office to which the case is transferred rather than on the individual officer holding charge.

---