SARITA JAIN Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in this writ petition is to the notice dt. 31st July, 2002, and the letter dt. 28th Oct., 2002, issued by the Dy. CIT, Central Circle XXI, Kolkata, under ss. 142(1) and 158BC of the IT Act, 1961, (for short the Act), calling upon the petitioner to furnish information for the purpose of assessment for the block period 1st April, 1990, to 12th Feb., 2001.

(2.) THE main grievance of the petitioner, an individual, is that the said notice and the letter are without jurisdiction inasmuch as she has been a regular assessee in Delhi for the last many years and at no point of time before the issue of the impugned notice/letter she had received any intimation regarding transfer of her case from Delhi. It is pleaded that only by virtue of letter dt. 28th Oct., 2002, the petitioner had learnt about an order purportedly passed under S. 127(2) of the Act by CIT, Delhi VII, on 15th Oct., 2002, allegedly transferring her case to Kolkata. It is asserted that the petitioner was not granted any opportunity of being heard if such an order was in fact passed.

(3.) IN view of the said instructions, we deem it unnecessary to go into the merits of this petition. It would suffice to only note that the dicta laid down by the apex Court in Ajantha Industries vs. CBDT 1976 CTR (SC) 79 : (1976) 102 ITR 281 (SC) still holds the field, irrespective of the fact whether the case falls under sub s. (1) or (2) of S. 127 of the Act. Therefore, before transferring the case of an assessee, a notice, containing reasons for proposed transfer should be given to the assessee concerned; an opportunity of hearing should be granted and thereafter a speaking order considering the objections raised is to be passed. Besides, such an order has to be communicated to the assessee concerned disclosing reasons for transfer.