IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA Writ Petition Nos.7605 and 7740 of 2010 Dated: 18.02.2026 W.P.No.7605 of 2010:

Between:

Smt.Akula Suvarna …Petitioner AND Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(2), Hyderabad and others. …Respondents COMMON ORDER : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy)

Heard Ms.B.Nishitha, learned counsel representing Mr.Ch.Pushyam Kiran, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms.B.Sapna Reddy, learned senior standing counsel representing Ms.J.Sunitha, learned senior standing counsel for Income Tax appearing on behalf of the respondents. Perused the record.

2. These are the two writ petitions filed challenging the order passed by the ITAT in two appeals which are preferred by the two petitioners in IT (SS) No.85/Hyd/2003 and IT (SS)

No.86/Hyd/2003 decided on 29.01.2010.

3. Vide the impugned order, the Tribunal had dismissed the two appeals preferred by the assessee challenging the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Guntur dated 31.03.2003 for the block assessment period 1988-99 to 1999-2000.

4. One of the primary contentions that the petitioners had raised before the CIT (Appeals) as also before the ITAT in the two appeals was the authority passing the assessment order lacking jurisdiction as no orders were passed under Section 127 transferring the assessment proceedings from the jurisdictional Assessing Officer to the Assessment Officer who has passed the assessment order. In addition it was also the contention that no such proceedings under Section 127 having been concluded and no final orders under Section 127 having been passed. The Assessing Officer lacks competence and also as a consequence is without jurisdiction.

5. Perusal of the orders of the ITAT would go to show that the learned ITAT had decided the said issue against the assessee holding that merely because the respondents have failed to produce the order under Section 127 before the Authorities by itself cannot be presumed that the order under Section 127 having not been passed. Further the Tribunal as also CIT (Appeals) have also gone on to decide that the assessee has himself failed to produce cogent evidence before the authorities to establish that no reasonable opportunity was given in the proceedings drawn under Section 127 and the Tribunal went on to hold that the Tribunal as such does not have the authority and jurisdiction to decide the question whether the Assessing Authority had the jurisdiction in the course of passing of the assessment order. According to the Tribunal, the assessee ought to have questioned the aspect of jurisdiction by way of writ petition.

6. A perusal of the order of the Tribunal go to show that the Tribunal also has reached to the conclusion that it was not mandatorily required for the authorities to afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing before transferring the jurisdiction of the Assessing Authority under Section 127(2) and held that it was only a discretion of the Officer to give such an opportunity and that too only ‘wherever it is possible to do so’ highlighting conjecture ‘may’ in the Section. The Tribunal further took cognizance of the fact that the CIT (Appeals) during the course of the appellate proceedings had tried to call for the records from the Office of the Commissioner who notified the cases of the appellant under Section 127 but could not obtain the details with which it could not be ascertained whether opportunities was given to the assessee and whether an order infact was passed under Section 127.

7. It is pertinent to take note of the fact that Tribunal itself in paragraph 11 has referred to a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajantha Industries v. Central Board of Direct Taxes wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that Section 127 mandatorily requires proceeding to the drawing under Section 127 after affording an reasonable o