S. K. Kapur, J ( 1 ) THE facts of this case liewithin a very narrow compass. It is alleged that the petitioner shiftedto Trivandrum from Ahmedabad in the year 1942. From 1942 to 1947he was doing business in Travancore Cochin and was being assessed underthe Travancore Cochin Income-tax Act. Thereafter the business of thepetitioner was converted into a Private Limited Company. From the year1950 to 1953 the petitioner was being assessed by the Income-Tax Officer,ernakulan, under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. It is alleged thatafter 1953 the petitioner ceased to carry on any business. The Income-tax Officer, Section VII (Central) Bombay; issued to the petitioner anotice dated the 12/09/1957 under section 23 (2) of the Indianincome-tax Act, 1922. On 17/12/1957 the petitioner wrote tothe said Income-tax Officer that he had no taxable income and was, therefore, forwarding a return showing nill income. He also pointed out thathe was a permanent resident of Trivandrum and consequenty the Income-tax Officer, Bombay had no jurisdiction to serve any notice on him. Thepetitioner also filed with the Income-tax Officer, Bombay an affidavit datedthe 28/03/1960 setting out in detail his activities and the various placesto which they were confined. The petitioner further alleged in his petitionthat since he had no business or income after the assessment year 1953-54he was not being assessed to tax by either the Income-tax Officer, Ernakulam or by any other Officer. He was living a retired life at his residencein Trivandrum. Nothing happened for quite some time after the petitionerhad written his above-mentioned letter dated 17/12/1957 andfiled his affidavit. On 3/06/1961 the Income-tax Officer, Sectionvii (Central) Bombay, wrote to the petitioner that the notices undersections 23 (2) and 22 (4) dated the 1/06/1961 for the assessment years1957-58 and 1959-60 be treated as cancelled. On 29/06/1961 the petitioner moved a petition in the Kerala High Court inter alia contending thatthe Income-tax Officer at Bombay had no jurisdiction to assess him. The saidpetition was dismissed as withdrawn on 6/07/1962 in view of the factsthat the petitioner had been by then informed by the Central Board ofrevenue by their letter dated the 28th of March 1962 that the transferorder had been made by them and the notices under section 23 (2) and22 (4), as already stated, had been withdrawn by the Income-tax Officer,bombay. ( 2 ) THE orders impugned by the present petition are order No. 55/56/55-IT dated 10/06/1955 passed by the Central Board of Revenuetransferring the case of the petitioner from Income tax Officer Salarycircle, Ernakularnto 7th Income-tax Officer A. I Ward, Bombay, and theorder No. 55/56/55-IT dated 14/02/1956 passed by the Centralboard of Revenue transferring the petitioner s cases from the 7th Income-tax Officer A-1 Ward, Bombay, to Income-tax Officer. Section VII (Central) Bombay. ( 3 ) MR. V. A. Seyid Muhammed, learned counsel for the petitionerhas raised two contentions before me- (1) that the orders for transferwere made before section 5 (7-A) of Indian Income-tax Act 1922 wasamended by addition of explanation in 1956 and consequently the amendment does not save the order and (2) that no opportunity of being heardwas given to the petitioner before passing the transfer orders. In supportto the first contention the learned counsel submits that it was held bythe Supreme Court in Bidi Supply Co. v. The Union of India and others,that omnibus order transferring all the cases was not within the perviewof section 5 (7-A ). Submits the learned counsel that inspite of thefacts that the section was amended by addition of the explanation thereis nothing in the explanation to suggest that the orders which were invalidat the time they were passed stood validated by the amendment. I amafraid I do not agree with the submission of the learned counsel. It is notdisputed that in view of the descision of the Supreme Court in Pannalalbinjraj v. Union of India, such an omnibus order could be passed under theamended Sectian 5 (7-A ). It should be remembered that the amendmentwas restrospective and specially provided that the explanation shall be deemed always to have been there. In view of this retrospective amendment I am remitted to consider the validity of the transfer order as if section 5 (7a) as amended was there from the very beginning. In this viewthe contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner must be repelled. Then submits the learned counsel that His Lordship Mr. Justice Bose inbidi Supply Company s case sounded a note of warning to the authoritiesfunctioning under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, that such drasticorders transferring cases from one place to another should not be passedwithout giving an appropriate opportunity to the assessee of being heard. Then submits the learned counsel that His Lordship Mr. Justice Bose inbidi Supply Company s case sounded a note of warning to the authoritiesfunctioning under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, that such drasticorders transferring cases from one place to another should not be passedwithout giving an appropriate opportunity to the assessee of being heard. The learned counsel then refers to the observations of their Lordships of thesupreme Court in Pannalal Binjraj s case. At pages 262-63 His Lordshipmr. Justice Bhagwati was pleased to observe that :". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . it would be prudent if the principles of natural justiceare followed, where circumstances permit, before any order of transferunder section 5 (7-A) of the Act is made by the Commissioner ofincome-tax or the Central Board of Revenue, as the case may be,and notice is given to the party affected and he is afforded areasonable opportunity of representing his views on the questionand the reasons of the order are reduced however briefly to writtingso far as the observations of Bose J. in Bidi Supply Co s case are concerned they were made in a different context. At-page 283 Hislordship expressly obserbed--"what is the position here ? There is no hearing, no reasons arerecorded : just peremptory orders transferring the case from one placeto another without any warning ; and the power given by the Actis to transfer from one end of India to the other ; nor is that power,unused. We have before us in this Court a case pending in which atransfer has been ordered from Calcutta in West Bengal to Ambala inthe Punjab. "then at page 287 to which the learned counsel for the petitioner drewmy pointed attention His Lordship was pleased to point out that-"in my opinion, the power of transfer can only be conferred if itis hedged round with reasonable restrictions the absence or existanceof which can in the last instance be determined by the Courts ; andthe excercise of the power must be in conformity with the rules of matural justice, that is to say, the parties affected must be heard when that is reasonably possible and the reasons for the order must bereduced, however briefly, to writing so that men may know that thepowers conferred on these quasi-judcial bodies are being justly andproperly excercised. "in my openion what is to be deduced from these observations is thatsince no hearing was provided in section 5 (7a) that tendered the provisionviolative of Article 14 of the Constitution which view was not acceptedin Pannalal Binjraj s case Again in Pannalal Binjarj s case their Lordships strongly emphasised the advisability of providing the assessee anopportunity of being heard before taking drastic step of transferring acase from one court to another but their Lordships did not hold that inthe absence of such an opportunity the order would stand vitiated. Inincome-tax Act of 1961, provision for being heard has been made incertain cases. ( 4 ) IN this view the impugned orders would not stand vitiated byreason of the petitioner not having been given an opportunity of beingheard. In the circumstances the petition fails and is dismissed but therewill be no order as to costs.