https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=10819 The court dismissed the original petition challenging garnishee proceedings under section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It held that the third respondent retained jurisdiction for recovery despite the petitioner's relocation, as the officer had completed the assessment for the relevant year and rectified it post-relocation. The court emphasized that the circular relied upon did not affect pending assessments or recovery post-change of residence. The Income-tax Department was allowed to proceed with recovery under the third respondent's jurisdiction until file transfers to the officer in Bangalore were finalized. en-us Tue, 07 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 25 Jul 2009 15:45:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=10819 The court dismissed the original petition challenging garnishee proceedings under section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It held that the third respondent retained jurisdiction for recovery despite the petitioner's relocation, as the officer had completed the assessment for the relevant year and rectified it post-relocation. The court emphasized that the circular relied upon did not affect pending assessments or recovery post-change of residence. The Income-tax Department was allowed to proceed with recovery under the third respondent's jurisdiction until file transfers to the officer in Bangalore were finalized. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 07 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=10819