PETITIONER BEFORE HON’BLE H1GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, AT BILASPUR WRIT PETmON (T) No. 393 RESPONDENTS / Q) /201O “MWK Raiendra Shivare S/o Kriparam M/ Shivare, aged about 47 years, R/o Village — Banbarad, Nandni, District Durg (C.G.) Commissioner of income Tax, Raipur, Aaykar Bhawén, Civii Lines, Raipur (C.Gi) Income Tai Officer —— Ward No. 1, Aayker Bhawan, New’Civic Centre, Bhilai (0Q) income Tax Officer, Ward No. 5. Bhiiai (C.G.). VERSUS 1. 3' WRIT PETiTiON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF iNDiA. / HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (T) NO. 993 OF 2010 PETITIONER Rajendra Kumar Shivare Versus RESPONDENTS Commissioner of Income Tax & Others (Writ petition under Articie 226 of the Constitution of india) Singie Bench : Hon’bie Shri §atish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :— Shri Anup Mazumdar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, Advocate for the respondents. t ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 5th day orJuiy, 2010) 1. Chaiienge in this petition is to the impugned notification dated 16/7/2007 (Annexure — P/1) whereby the Assistant Commissioner of income Tax (Admn.)‘by notification No.3 of 2007—08 transferred the case from the assessment ward No.5 to ward No.1. The facts, in nutsheii, for adjudication of the case, are that the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Admn.) by notification No.3 of 2007-08 dated 16—7—2007 transferred the case from the assessment ward No.5 to ward No.1. Thereafter, the petitioner made an application dated 22—10-2009 for transfer of his case from ward No.1 to ward No.5. The Deputy income Tax Commissioner (Headquarter) (Admn.) rejected the appiication of the petitioner by order dated 14—1-2010 hoiding that the Commissioner has power to transfer the assessment ward from one to another within the same city without affording an opportunity of hearing. 3. Shri Majumdar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the order transferring the ward has been passed in absence of the petitioner, without any communication and without any notice. Shri Mazumdar further submits that even the transfer order was not communicated to him. \. \ . 4. On the other hand, Shri Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 & 2, submits that under sub-section (3) of Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act, 196M no notice is required, if the assessment case has been transferred from the one assessing officer-to other assessing officer within the same city, locality or place. in the ‘ case on hand, ward No.5 and ward No.1/are within the same city i.e. Bhilai. Thus, no information/notice is required. Learned counsei next submits that if"‘the ward has been transferred, other assessing officer, who is having jurisdiction, can assess and pass appropriate order. i have heard learned counsei appearing for the parties, perused the pteadings and thedocuments appended thereto. 6.‘ Sub-section (3) of Section 127 of the Act, 1961 reads as under : “127 (3) Nothing in sub—section (1) .or sub-section (2)' shall be deemed to require any such opportunity to be‘ given where the transfer is from any Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) to any other Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) and the offices of such officers are situated in the same city, locality or place.” There is no dispute that the assessing officer has been changed by transfer of the case from the assessment ward No.5 to ward No.1, situated at the same city i.e. 'Bhilai. If the assessing officer is othenNise competent to assess the matter, there is no illegibility or irregularity in view of the provisions of Section 127 (3) of the Act, 1961. The contention of the petitioner that notice of the transfer of the case is mandatory is noticed to be rejected, as bare perusal of the provisions ofthe Act, 1961 does not provide for any notice or intimation. in the case on hand, the assessment of the petitioner has been transferred from ward No.5 to ward No.1 within the same city, locality or place i.e. Bhilai. Contention of hri Mazumdar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that since the case has been restored to the originai file, the same assessing officer alone is competent to reassess the case deserves to be rejected, as any other assessing officer can assess the matter within the same city. it is not necessary to assess the case by the same assessing ward. in View of administrative exigency and other reasons, the assessment ward can be changed by the competent authority. The Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner may transfer the case from one ward to other ward for reassessment. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the petition with regard to transfer of case from ward No.1 to ward No.5 is bereft of merit. 10. In the result, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/— SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI l Jud’ge ' Gowri S