TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1991 (10) TMI 39
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r his jurisdiction being Central Circle-20. Interestingly enough, both the transferor and the transferee-offices are situated on the same floor, in the same building and in the same city. This writ petition which seeks to challenge this order of transfer and the consequent assessment orders passed in respect of petitioners Nos. 2 and 4 appears to be a desperate effort to avoid being assessed by the transferee-officer. The challenge in this writ petition, as we shall presently see, has been made despite the fact that the legal contentions sought to be raised before us are squarely covered by an authoritative pronouncement of Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Kashiram Aggarwalla v. Union of India [1965] 56 I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i Enterprises v. CIT [1991] 189 ITR 705 (AP), Vijayasanthi Investments Pvt. Ltd. v. Chief CIT [1991] 187 ITR 405 (AP), Vasudeo Vishwanath Saraf v. New Education Institute [1986] 161 ITR 835 (SC) and K. Joseph Jacob v. Agrl. ITO [1991] 190 ITR 464 (Ker), three contentions have been raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. The first contention is that the reasons for the transfer should have been communicated. The second contention is that the order dated May 7, 1990, was not served on the assessee by the Commissioner of Income-tax and, lastly, it is contended that the order of transfer is effective only from the date when it was communicated to the petitioners. In this connection, it is submitted that any action taken prior to the commu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hould be recorded. Sub-section (3) is, however, an exception to sub-section (1). This sub-section is analogous to the original proviso to section 127(1) and it provides that an opportunity of hearing is not required to be granted when the transfer is from one Assessing Officer to another and the two offices are situated in the same city, locality or place. It is not in dispute that, in the instant case, the transfer is from one Assessing Officer who has his office on the fifth floor of Mayur Bhawan, New Delhi, to another Assessing Officer having his office on the same floor in the same building. Sub-section (3) of section 127 is, therefore, clearly applicable. There is no requirement of giving an opportunity to the assessee to be heard befo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... two Incometax Officers in Calcutta to a third Income-tax Officer in Calcutta itself. The transfer had been ordered by the Central Board of Direct Taxes and that had been challenged on the ground that no opportunity of being heard had been granted. The Supreme Court went further and also observed that where the provisions of the proviso to section 127 apply, it may not even be necessary to give reasons for the transfer. It was observed by the Supreme Court as follows (pp. 16, 17) : "But, on the other hand, the provision that nothing in sub-section (1) shall be deemed to require any opportunity to be given, is worded in an emphatic form ; and that fact has to be borne in mind in considering the effect of the proviso. Besides, it would not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a question of the notice of transfer (pp. 17, 18) : " This provision clearly indicates that where a transfer is made under the proviso to section 127(1) from one Income-tax Officer to another in the same locality, it merely means that instead of one Income-tax Officer who is competent to deal with the case, another Income-tax Officer has been asked to deal with it. Such an order is purely in the nature of an administrative order passed for considerations of convenience of the Department and no possible prejudice can be involved in such a transfer. Where, as in the present proceedings, assessment cases pending against the appellant before an officer in one ward are transferred to an officer in another ward in the same place, there is hard....