Local assessment right under income-tax law prevails against omnibus transfer orders lacking case-specific justification and safeguards.

Section 64 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 recognised a statutory right to local assessment, displaced only by a valid transfer of a particular pending case under section 5(7A). The transfer power required case-specific application of mind to a defined assessment year or proceeding; a general, all-purpose transfer of all assessments without temporal limit did not satisfy that standard. An omnibus order shifting the assessee's cases wholesale from Calcutta to Ranchi was treated as discriminatory and unsupported by law, contrary to Article 14. The transfer order was therefore invalid and unenforceable, and the assessee remained entitled to local assessment. One concurring judge would also have struck down the transfer provisions as ultra vires Article 14 for lack of safeguards.

---

---

Issues: Whether the omnibus transfer order made under section 5(7A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, was valid and whether the petitioner was denied equality before the law under Article 14 of the Constitution.

Analysis: Section 64 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, gave the assessee a statutory right to be assessed locally, subject only to a valid transfer of a particular pending case under section 5(7A). The transfer power contemplated case-specific application of mind to a particular assessment year or pending proceeding, and not a general all-purpose transfer of all assessments without temporal limit. The impugned order was expressed in general terms and transferred the assessee's cases wholesale from Calcutta to Ranchi, thereby placing it at a special disadvantage vis-a -vis similarly situated bidi merchants. Such discrimination was not supported by law and could not be justified as a permissible classification.

Conclusion: The transfer order was invalid and unenforceable, and the petitioner remained entitled to assessment in accordance with section 64.

Concurring Opinion: One Judge agreed that the petition should be allowed, but held that sections 5(7A) and 64(5)(b) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, were themselves ultra vires Article 14 because the statute conferred uncontrolled transfer power without adequate safeguards, hearing, or recorded reasons.

---