(1.) THE facts of this lie within a very narrow compass. It is alleged that the petitioner shifted to Trivandrum from Ahmedabad in the year 1942. From 1942 to 1947, he was doing business in Travancore-Cochin and was being assessed under the Travancore Cochin Income-tax Act. THEreafter, the business of the petitioner was converted into a private limited company. From the year 1950 to 1953, the petitioner was being assessed by the Income-tax officer, Ernakulam, under the Indian Income-tax, 1922. It is alleged that after 1953, the petitioner ceased to carry on any business. THE Income-tax Officer that he had no taxable income and was, therefore, forwarding a return showing "nil" income. He also pointed out that he was a permanent resident of a Trivandrum and, consequently, the Income-tax Officer, Bombay had no jurisdiction to serve any notice on him. THE petitioner also filed with the Income-tax Officer, Bombay, an affidavit dated the 28th March, 1960, setting out in detail his activities and the various places to which they were confined. THE petitioner further alleged in his petition that since he had no business or income after the assessment year 1953-54, he was not being assessed to tax by either the Income-tax officer, Ernakulam or by any other officer. He was living retired life at his residence in Trivandrum. Nothing happened for quite some time after the petitioner had written his above-mentioned letter dated 17th December, 1957, and filed his affidavit. On 3rd June, 1961, the Income-tax Officer, Section VII (Central) Bombay wrote to the petitioner that the notices under section 23(2) and 22(4) dated the 1st June, 1961, for the assessment year 1957-58 and 1959-60 be treated as cancelled. On 29th June, 1961, the petitioner moved a petition in the Kerala High Court, inter alia, contending that the Income-tax Officer at Bombay had no jurisdiction to assess him. THE said petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 6th July, 1962, in view of the fact that the petitioner had been, by then, informed by the Central Board of Revenue by their letter dated the 28th of March, 1962, that the transfer order had been made by them and the notices under section 23(2) and 22(4) as already stated, had been withdrawn by the Income-tax Officer, Bombay.
(2.) THE orders impugned by the present petition are Order No. 55/56/55-IT dated 10th June, 1955, passed by the Central Board of Revenue transferring the cases of the petitioner from the Income-tax Officer, Salary Circle, Ernakulam, to the 7th Income-tax Officer, A-1 Ward, Bombay, and the Order No. 55/56/55-IT dated 14th February, 1956, passed by the Central Board of Revenue transferring the petitioners cases from the 7th Income-tax Officer, A-1 Ward, Bombay, to the Income-tax Officer, Section VII (Central), Bombay.
(3.) IN this view the impugned orders would not stand vitiated by reason of the petitioner not having been given an opportunity of being heard. IN the circumstances the petition fails and is dismissed, but there will be no order as to costs.