IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 21651 of 2011 Date of Decision: 22.11.2011 Prem Pal Gandhi ........Petitioner Vs. Union of India and others .......Respondent C.W.P. No. 21663 of 2011 M/s. K.C. Land and Finance Ltd. ........Petitioner Vs. Union of India and others .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G. S. SANDHAWALIA Present: Mr. S.K. Mukhi, Advocate and Ms. Jyoti, Advocate for the petitioner HEMANT GUPTA, J. This order shall dispose of two petitions i.e. C.W.P. No. 21651 of 2011 (Prem Pal Gandhi vs. Union of India and others) and C.W.P. No. 21663 of 2011 (M/s. K.C. Land and Finance Ltd. vs. Union of India and others). The facts are being taken from C.W.P. No. 21651 of 2011. Challenge is to the order dated 09.08.2010 in respect of the assessee – Prem Pal Gandhi and M/s. K.C. Land and Finance Ltd., though, we have dismissed earlier writ petition on 11.11.2011 against the same order being C.W.P. No. 20845 of 2011 titled as M/s. Walia Traders Ltd. vs. Union of India and others. C.W.P. No. 21651 of 2011 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that in terms of sub-section 3 of Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 opportunity of hearing is dispensed with and not the recording of reasons for transfer of assessment proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon judgments in the case of Dr. Hemang Ashvinkuar Baxi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and another, (2010) 45 DTR (Guj) 38 and Kusum Goyal vs. Income Tax Officer and others, (2010) 48 DTR (Cal) 343. Sub-Section (1) of Section 127 contemplates an opportunity of hearing to be granted to an assessee, if transfer is proposed from one District Office to another but also that the Director or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner to record reasons for the transfer. Sub Section (3) dispenses with opportunity of hearing if the transfer and the transferee officers can situate in the same city, locality or place. A perusal of the order dated 09.08.2010 shows that assessment in the case of assessee was transferred from DCIT, R-II, Jalandhar to A.O. Central Circle-II, Jalandhar, in respect of the petitioner and so was in the case of other petitioners whose writ petition was dismissed earlier. It is transfer of the assessment proceedings intra city. The petitioner is required to show that recording of reasons has caused any prejudice. Since the transfer was made intra city, we do not find that there is any prejudice suffered by the petitioner which may vitiate the order passed by the authority. C.W.P. No. 21651 of 2011 3 In Dr. Hemang Ashvinkuar Baxi's case (supra) the challenge was to the notice under Section 153C of the Act but in respect of secondary challenge there is an observation that the impugned order does not show that the reasons have been recorded. In Kusum Goyal's case (supra), the stand of the department was that since the minimum income of the assessee is exceeded the minimum threshold limit of Rs. 10 lacs, the jurisdiction stands automatically transferred. It was the said reasoning which was not accepted by the Single Bench of the Calcutta High Court. Keeping in view the facts of the case and the previous order passed by this Court, we do not find any illegality in the order passed nor the petitioner has suffered any prejudice. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (G.S. SANDHAWALIA) JUDGE 22.11.2011 reena