Under Section 127 of the Income tax act, it mandates that the assessee must be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard before any transfer is executed. Thus, the same shall be fulfilled

The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax ( JCIT ) cannot transfer a case to the subordinate officer behind the back of the assessee. The Patna High Court ruled that the transfer shall take place only after granting the assessee an opportunity to be heard. Mr. Dinesh Prasad Singh, the assesseechallenged the proceedings initiated by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(3), Patna before the court. A notice dated October 11, 2018, was issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, targeting the petitioner, who was assigned to the Income Tax Officer, Ward 66(1), Delhi. The petitioner had filed their Income Tax returns for the assessment year 2015-16 before the Income Tax Officer in Delhi. Despite this, the petitioner received further notice from the Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(3), Patna leading to questions about the jurisdiction and the service of the notice. It was contended that no proceedings should have been undertaken by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(3), Patna, due to the lack of proper notice under Section 148. The petitioner argued that the jurisdiction was incorrectly applied and that the proceedings should not have been initiated by the Patna officer. Mrs. Archana Sinha, Sr. SC for the Income Tax Department referenced Section 124(3) of the income tax law and the consolidation of matters by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-6, Patna, who oversees both Bihar and Jharkhand. The Counsel also pointed out that the land involved in the development agreement, which triggered the notice under Section 148, was located in Bihar. Additionally, Section 127 was cited, stating that the assessment order should be challenged through a proper appeal rather than a writ petition under Article 226. The same Court had previously addressed similar issues in C.W.J.C. No. 4833 of 2020, where it was held that the JCIT have to inform the assessee with regards to the transfer of the case. In that the case, the court observed that “We, specifically notice Section 127 which clothes the Principal Director General, Director General, the Principal Chief Commissioner, Chief Commissioner or Commissioner to transfer any case from one or more Assessing Officers sub-ordinate to him, whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction to any other Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers also sub-ordinate to him. However, the specific mandate in Section 127 is that the Assessee should be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter wherever it is possible to do so.” The bench composed of Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Partha Sarthy highlighted that Section 127 of the Income tax act mandates that the assessee must be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard before any transfer is executed. The present case showed that such an opportunity was not provided to the petitioner, as the transfer was carried out without proper notice, observed the bench. Thus, the Court found the assessment order to be invalid due to the improper transfer and lack of adherence to the principles of natural justice. The notice issued was deemed incorrect, and the Court set aside the assessment order. Mr. Aman Raja, Advocate Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha, Advocate and Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate appeared for the petitioner.