2004 (9) TMI 93

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....-02 is produced as exhibit P2. According to the petitioner after the petitioner shifted her residence to Bangalore, the third respondent ceased to have jurisdiction for recovery as "Assessing Officer" and therefore garnishee proceedings issued under section 226(3) of the Act vide exhibits P5 to P9 are without jurisdiction. The petitioner relies on exhibit P3 circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes under section 120(1) and (2) of the Act providing jurisdiction of officers on assessees other than companies with reference to the place of residence of the assessee. According to the petitioner, after the petitioner shifted her residence to Bangalore, the petitioner is within the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer, at Bangalore a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ioner is always with the officers who exercise jurisdiction over the area of residence of the assessees. In this particular case, the petitioner was residing within the jurisdiction of the third respondent and was being assessed by him until the year 2001-02 when the petitioner's assessment was E completed by the officer at Bangalore vide exhibit P2 order. In fact the officer at Bangalore should have called for the back files for follow-up action in regard to recovery and other matters. However, I do not think the failure of the officer at Bangalore in calling for records or the failure of the third respondent in transferring the file to the officer at Bangalore will affect the jurisdiction of the third respondent as "Assessing Officer" in ....