@ 0% {aw/x BEFORE HON BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ; :W‘RIT PETmON (T) No. §£6 I2io1o‘ $EN§LE gEE‘ai‘fgé PETmON‘IER i, i 1 éjendra, Shiévare S/o Kriparam Shivare, aged about 47 years, R/o Village — Banbarad, Nandni, District Durg(C.G.) ‘ ‘ VERSUS / 1. Commissioner :of Income Tax, Raipur, Aaykar BhawainLCivii Lines, RaipurN (cs) RESPbNbENT / a 2. income Tax Officer — Ward No. 1, Aayker BhaWan, New Civic Centre, Bhiiai (C‘.G_)‘)I‘f:f/" bumg (~ 5 / 3. Branch Manager, Bank of india, Dnamda Branch, Dhamda, Distt- Durg WRIT 'PEETITION UNDER ARTICLE' 2260i: THE CONSTiTUTlON OF INDIA. @ s H COURT OF CHHATTISGARH “BILASP WRIT PETITIO Rajendra Shlvare ' Versus \ VRESPON‘DENTS _ ' ‘ CommISSIoner of Income Tax & “ ‘ Others :v V' i. ( d“ ticle 226 of the Constitution of India Ar ) Wrilt p titionuh stava Advocate for the respondent he Assistant Commissio T n itnoutfaffOrding an‘b eari H UR ’ N ) I a s ,‘ lehge In this petition Is to the order dated 14 1-201 ature — P/1) whereby the appllcatlon dated 22 10-20 eh“? _ W6) f'ed by the Petitioner for transfer of his cas l 0 I n 19:. “ e» ”I ' ~ “w bp I hng“ I ubmits that he orer transferrin the ward has been assed I I M e bs that n“ he'tralnser orer was no communrcatfd to him ear bsence of e etItIQner Without any'communicatuon a' Without any notice Shrl azumdar furt r sumlt eve tlf d t Lned c b th fr t the rlglnal fle the same assessmg offucer should re conSIder th ent not any other officer Onthe otherhand ShnShnvastava learn dcounseapp le f n ( e - r r A s ‘ b r J I e c X Wlthrn the se l ci rd S ar r l ounsel next sumits at ate resoratlorl1 of the matter to tssess or the respondents No1 & 2 submits tl-lat under sub sectio 3) of Sectuon 127 of the Income Tax Act: 1961 (for short “th ct“ 19611 no notlce ls reqUIred If the assessment case ha een transferred from the one assessmg officer to othe ln th ase on hand ward No 5 and ward No 1 are am Bhllal Thus no mformatron/notl eqUIre o f ,a ce E nt frm «th )’, y ssmg offlcer Within the same cuty, locallt or lace t s commumcatlon of the order Is con It Is evude o e letter of the petitioner dated 22 10 2009 (Annexure — P/6 hat‘ the petitioner was aware about the transfer of th sses ment case Learned counsel next subits i h ad has been transferred oter assessm oficer who aVing jurisdiction can assess and pass ap opriate orde have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties eruse 1 a p t 't e r a m that f te w h g f is : h r fl pd leadings and the documents appended thereo ub ection (3) of Section 127 of the Act 1961 reads as S ? “127 (3) Nothing in sub~section (1) o sub section (2) shall be deemed t eqwre any such opportunity to b given where the transfer is from an Assessmg Officer Assessm ’Officers (whether With or Withou concurrent Jurisdiction) to any other ssess Offi ssessm ameCIty, localityor la ‘ s t d g p n, a th p dr- _ o e w a i e y p -; r o- r r e y g ‘T t “Amg cer 0r Ag, ‘s ce.” Is no dlspute that the assessmg officer has been changed; -’ f v r , 1 ; by transfer of the case from the assessment ward S ituated at the same Clty Ie Bhllal If the assessmg ” , officer s otherWIse competent to assess the matter there Is no 1 PII|leglblllty or Irregularlty in View of the prowsmns of Section 127_ , , : (3 oft eAct 1961 The contention ofthe petrttonerthat notice :0 the transfer of the case Is mandatory Is noticed to be’ ”rejected as bare perusal of the provrsmns of the Act 1961 does r. not‘prAvude for any notice or mttmatron in the case on hand I ; the,assessment of the petitioner has been transferred from ward No 5 to ward No 1 wrthm the same City, locality or ptace l tentron of Shrl Mazumdar learned counsel appearing fork ‘ § tlttoner that smce the :ase has been restored to thexf’] is? i I I riginal flle the same assessmg officer alone Is competent tof~ _ rt, "reassess the case deserves to be re ed as any otherfi" L, é , l t l l m e o f t ‘ ”assessing offlcer can assess the matter wrthln the same olty i ’ s,n”t necess'r ase bysthe same assess ' ‘ h v e reasons mentuoned heremabo eard {to transfer of case from ward No 1 to ward No 5 Is bereft With reard to other prayer that the petitioner may be permitted pe ate the accounts and further the respondent department ay b" directed to pay an amount of Rs 46 54 228/- of refund" est at the rate of 18% per an'Jum is concern nnot be conSIdered ecrded at this moment F0r op ra ,g the account t etitioner may make proper applic ion before the competent authority and appropriate ay be passed-30' the sa e by the said authority after' onSIdering the factual s of the matter and legal; e o ) -i ‘ L ‘ ‘I y ’ " c mg. Firgi , “ -‘ ' . : g i ‘ j m x i ' ‘g " ‘ r e a a "d r ~ ' ’ h p 't *i ? m ‘ (c a \‘t ' o f as efu amount is concerned under the rovrsro r 240 At 1961 t p n‘ ssessmen Is se asre or cell d n dr l t r I n s b come ue onl on the makin of such i had frh assesment hs the case on n es s a ribunal and as such the refund ma be conSIere only ae res assessment orer Is passed it Ist Informed that In View of endency of this etition flna ssessmen orer as no been passed S ar rnd of pns', v of the c I rs clearly rovrded that If a re see een irece b h b dtd y te! T y dd ftrj ,fh d p p l- at d h t It Is accordingly d h dg ppy g e irected tat after afforin an oortunit of hearin to th etitioner assessment orer ma e assed In accordanc w la nd o s on merits n the result te wn etition fails and oder sto costs Sd/— SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI p d y b p e h§VIll a n It w I h t p Is r a I l t at t d caned an a ore of fresh assessment rs directed to be made the efund f ay, hall fsh asssmnt In d y g f