Masumeh Himmati Vs PCIT (Telangana High Court)
Telangana High Court Upholds Transfer of Income-Tax Case Between Assessing Officers Within Same City Under Section 127(3)
Summary: The Telangana High Court, comprising Acting Chief Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice Suddala Chalapathi Rao, in Masumeh Himmati Vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax & Others, W.P. No. 35686 of 2026, decided on 27 October 2026, dismissed a writ petition challenging the transfer of the petitioner’s income-tax case under Section 127(2)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and consequential reassessment proceedings for Assessment Year 2022-23. The petitioner sought to quash the transfer order dated 13 March 2026 and the subsequent show-cause notice dated 30 March 2026 under Section 148A(1), order dated 27 June 2026 under Section 148A(3), and notice of the same date under Section 148. The principal jurisdictional objection concerned the transfer of the case between Assessing Officers situated within the same city, without a prior opportunity of hearing.
At the hearing, counsel for both sides informed the Court that similar writ petitions, W.P. Nos. 34888 and 35022 of 2026, had already been dismissed on 15 October 2026. Those decisions relied upon the High Court’s earlier judgment dated 12 June 2026 in W.P. No. 13934 of 2026, which had held that a transfer between Assessing Officers situated within the same city was permissible under Section 127(3) of the Income-tax Act without issuing prior notice or granting an opportunity of hearing. The earlier decisions also rejected challenges to consequential proceedings founded solely on an alleged lack of jurisdiction arising from such transfers. Following that reasoning, the High Court dismissed the present writ petition in similar terms. Importantly, the Court preserved the petitioner’s liberty to challenge the reassessment proceedings on other legally permissible grounds before the competent forum. Accordingly, the judgment resolves the transfer-based jurisdictional objection but does not independently adjudicate the merits or other procedural validity of the reassessment proceedings. No order as to costs was passed, and pending miscellaneous applications were closed.
Cases Discussed
- M/s MS Agarwal Foundries Private Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Others, W.P. No. 13934 of 2026, Telangana High Court, decided on 12/06/2026 — The earlier judgment holding that transfer between Assessing Officers within the same city was permissible under Section 127(3) without prior notice or an opportunity of hearing. The principle was followed through the subsequent connected decisions.
- Syed Mohammed Ali Azam Vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, W.P. No. 34888 of 2026, Telangana High Court, decided on 15/10/2026 — One of the two writ petitions dismissed in similar circumstances. The operative reasoning was reproduced and followed in the present order.
- Ali Hemati Vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, W.P. No. 35022 of 2026, Telangana High Court, decided on 15/10/2026 — Connected writ petition dismissed by the High Court, with liberty preserved to raise other permissible objections to reassessment proceedings.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Learned counsel Sri Hirendernath appears for the petitioner.
Ms. Bokaro Sapna Reddy, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department, appears for the respondents.
2. The present writ petition has been filed seeking the following relief:
“For the reasons stated in the accompanying grounds, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:
a. To issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly a Writ of Certiorari, and quash and set aside the Order dt.13.03.2026 bearing Order No. ITBA/COM/F/17/2025- 26/1087313434(1), passed by the Respondent No.1 under Section 127(2)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, insofar as it relates to the Petitioner;
b. consequently, quash and set aside the proceedings initiated by the Respondent No.4 pursuant to the aforesaid Order dated 13.03.2026 in respect of Assessment Year 2022-23, including the Notice dated 30.03.2026 issued under Section 148A(1) bearing DIN & Notice No. ITBA/AST/F/148A(SCN)_1/2025-26/1088154285(1), the Order dated 27.06.2026 passed under Section 148A(3) bearing DIN & Notice No. ITBA/AST/F/148A/2026-27/1090511012(1), and the consequential notice dt.27.06.2026 issued under Section 148 bearing DIN & Notice No. ITBA/AST/S/148_1/2026- 27/1090511231(1);
c. pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interests of justice.”
3. When the matter is taken up today, learned counsel for the parties submit that in similar circumstances, this court dismissed W.P.Nos.34888 and 35022 of 2026 on 15.10.2026, the operative portion of which reads as under:
“17. Further, in similar circumstances, this Court by order dt.12.06.2026 in WP.No.13934 of 2026, dismissed the Writ Petition, wherein this Court held that transfers of the petitioner’s case between the Assessing Officers situated within the same city was valid under Section 127(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without requiring prior notice or an opportunity of hearing. Consequently, the assessment order passed by the transferee authority could not be challenged on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
18. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner has not established that the transfer order is liable to be set aside merely because no search or survey was conducted in his individual case or because no reassessment proceedings were pending before the 3rd respondent on the date of transfer or that no valid reasons were assigned. Consequently, the challenge to the consequential proceedings pursuant to the transfer order, therefore, cannot be accepted.
CONCLUSION:
19. For the aforesaid reasons recorded in the lead Writ Petition, both the Writ Petitions are dismissed. However, this shall not preclude the petitioners from challenging the reassessment proceedings on other permissible grounds before the competent forum in accordance with law. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.”
4. In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition is also dismissed in similar terms. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
