a) The assessee was intimated that jurisdiction of the assessee's case pending with the Income tax department had been transferred from Rourkella to Sambalpur.
b) Assessee challenged orders before the High Court on the ground that his jurisdiction was changed without providing an opportunity of being heard and without assigning any reason. High Court held in favour of revenue as under:
1) There is no denial of the fact that if any decision is taken, which is detrimental to the interest of the parties, a notice is required to be given on the principle that no man can be condemned without hearing him.
2) The underlying motive is to provide an opportunity to know the reasons behind taking the decision of transfer.
3) Restructuring of the department was done for equitable distribution of work and, as such, the order passed by the authorities was for administrative convenience.
4) In the given case, even if the assessee would have been provided an opportunity of being heard before taking the decision, no material change would have come.
5) Further, it was not that the case of the assessee herein had only been transferred but the cases of other assessees had also been transferred.
6) Therefore, transfer of case on restructuring of department would be valid even if hearing chance wasn't given to assessee -  77 taxmann.com 321 (Orissa)