MUKUTLA LALITA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was hitherto being assessed for the purpose of income-tax by the ITO, Ward 3, Kakinada, and had been allotted GIR No. L-754, has come before us complaining to have received an order dt. 26th November, 1996, transferring her file from the jurisdiction of the third respondent - ITO, Kakinada - to the second respondent - Asstt. CIT, Circle I,. Rajahmundry, in purported exercise of the power under s. 127(2) of the IT Act, 1961, for short "the Act".

(2.) Mr. S. Ravi, learned counsel for the petitioner, has raised the question that s. 127(1) and (2) of the Act contemplates issue of a notice to the assessee before an order transferring the file is passed, but that no notice has been issued to the petitioner before effecting the transfer.

(3.) A counter-affidavit has been filed disclosing the stand that the petitioner's father's premises was raided which yielded some materials connecting also the petitioner to the suppressed income detected for which proceedings under Chapter XIV-B are initiated against her under the provisions of s. 158BD, the papers relating to the search are to be handed over to the ITO, Kakinada, who is the AO so far as the petitioner is concerned, but that since under s. 158BG the assessment of the block period in pursuance of the search is to be done only by an officer of the rank of the Asstt. CIT, the file of the petitioner has also been transferred to the concerned Asstt. CIT, i.e., the second respondent herein. It has also been contended that the reference to s. 127(2) in the impugned order was erroneously made and that that provision has no application since Chapter XIV-B is a specific procedure to be adopted to such cases.