Transfer of income-tax jurisdiction upheld where assessee convenience was only a relevant factor, not an absolute right.

A challenge to transfer of income-tax jurisdiction failed where the assessees had already been made aware of the relevant grounds, filed detailed objections, and showed no prejudice from any perceived defect in the notice. The Court held that an order need not be struck down merely because every later reason was not set out in the initial notice, so long as the real grounds were within the assessees' response and no new matter was introduced. It further held that assessee convenience is only a relevant factor, not an absolute right, and upheld transfer from Delhi to Meerut because the move served administrative necessity, effective tax collection, and showed no mala fides or arbitrariness.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the challenge to the show cause notice and the transfer order under the transfer of jurisdiction provision was vitiated for want of adequate disclosure and breach of natural justice; (ii) Whether the transfer of the assessees' cases from Delhi to Meerut was arbitrary, mala fide, or otherwise unsustainable having regard to the statutory power of transfer and the convenience of the assessee.

Issue (i): Whether the challenge to the show cause notice and the transfer order under the transfer of jurisdiction provision was vitiated for want of adequate disclosure and breach of natural justice.

Analysis: The notice was attacked on the ground that it did not state all the reasons later relied upon for transfer. The Court held that although an order ordinarily cannot travel beyond the notice, the defect stood cured here because the assessees had already been made aware of the relevant considerations and had filed detailed objections. The later speaking order did not rely on matters foreign to those objections, and no prejudice was shown.

Conclusion: The challenge on the ground of insufficient notice and breach of natural justice failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the transfer of the assessees' cases from Delhi to Meerut was arbitrary, mala fide, or otherwise unsustainable having regard to the statutory power of transfer and the convenience of the assessee.

Analysis: The Court applied the settled principle that an assessee has no fundamental right to be assessed at a particular place. Under the transfer provision, convenience of the assessee is relevant but is subordinate to effective tax administration and collection. The material showed searches in Delhi and Uttar Pradesh, a group-wise centralisation rationale, and no basis to infer mala fides or caprice. Meerut was treated as a convenient venue in the overall facts, and the power to transfer was not confined to any alleged choice between only the existing pending locations.

Conclusion: The transfer to Meerut was upheld as neither arbitrary nor mala fide.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions challenging the transfer of jurisdiction failed in their entirety, and the impugned transfer of the assessees' cases was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: In matters of transfer of income-tax jurisdiction, the assessee's convenience is only a relevant factor and not an absolute right, and a transfer will be upheld where it is supported by administrative necessity, effective tax collection, and absence of mala fides or arbitrariness, especially when the assessee has had a fair opportunity to answer the real grounds relied upon.

---