Judgment :- Petitioner is challenging garnishee proceedings issued under Section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act by the third respondent for arrears of income tax due and assessed for the year 1998-99. According to the petitioner. Petitioner shifted her residence to Bangalore where the petitioner filed her first income-tax returns for the year 2001-02. The assessment issued by the Income-tax Officer at Bangalore for the year 2001-02 is produced as Ext. P2. According to the petitioner after petitioner shifted her residence to Bangalore, the third respondent ceased to have jurisdiction for recovery as ‘assessing officer’ and therefore garnishee proceedings issued under Section 226(3) of the Act vide Exts.P5 to P9 are without jurisdiction. Petitioner relies on Ext.P3 circular issued by the Board of Direct Taxes under Section 120(1) and (2) of the Act providing jurisdiction of officers on assessees other than companies with reference to place of residence of assessee. According to the petitioner after the petitioner shifted her residence to Bangalore, petitioner is within the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer at Bangalore and so much so the third respondent ceases to be the “assessing officer” of the petitioner who cannot issue any recovery proceeding against the petitioner. 2. Senior standing counsel appearing for Income-tax Department. Sri. P.K.R. Menon, contended that petitioner’s assessment for the year 1998-99 for which garnishee proceedings are initiated was completed by the third respondent and on the petitioner’s application the assessment was rectified vide Ext.P1 order dated 18.7.2001. According to him, the third respondent continues to be the assessing officer for recovery proceedings in respect of assessments completed by him. He also pointed out that even after shifting of residence by the petitioner and even after filing return for the year 2001-02 petitioner requested for rectification of the assessment before the third respondent who rectified the assessment for the year 1998-99 vide Ext.P1 order. 3. Petitioner has no case that the tax assessed is not payable by the petitioner. Her contention is limited to the jurisdiction of the third respondent to initiate recovery proceedings including garnishee proceedings under Section 226(3) of the Act, which is under challenge in this O.P. The jurisdiction of income-tax authorities are prescribed by the Board of Direct Taxes from time to time in exercise of powers under Section 120(1) and (2) of the Act. Her contention is limited to the jurisdiction of the third respondent to initiate recovery proceedings including garnishee proceedings under Section 226(3) of the Act, which is under challenge in this O.P. The jurisdiction of income-tax authorities are prescribed by the Board of Direct Taxes from time to time in exercise of powers under Section 120(1) and (2) of the Act. There is no dispute that the jurisdiction in respect of individual assessees like the petitioner is always with the officers who exercise jurisdiction over the area of residence of the assessees. In this particular case, petitioner was residing within the jurisdiction of the third respondent and was being assessed by him until the year 2001-02 when the petitioner’s assessment was completed by the Officer at Bangalore vide Ext.P2 order. In fact the Officer at Bangalore should have called for the back files for follow-up action in regard to recovery and other matters. However, I do not think the failure of the Officer at Bangalore in calling for records or the failure of third respondent in transferring the file to the Officer at Bangalore will affect the jurisdiction of the third respondent as “assessing Officer” in respect of recovery of tax assessed by him. Petitioner has no dispute that the third respondent has completed assessment for the year 1998-99 as assessing officer and he had jurisdiction to complete the assessment. The remaining question to be considered is whether the third respondent forfeits his jurisdiction for recovery of arrears of tax assessed by him on account of shifting of residence by the petitioner making the officer at Bangalore the present “assessing officer”, based on Ext.P3 circular issued by the Board of Direct Taxes in exercise of powers under Section 120(1) and (2) of the Act. It is to be noted that in Ext.P3, there is no mention about pending assessment or recovery of tax in respect of completed assessments etc, as on the date of shifting of residence by the assesses. Of course, the Board probably expects transfer of back-files from the assessing officer concerned to the Officer before whom the petitioner is to be assessed after shifting of residence. In the absence of any specific provision in Ext.P3 about pending assessments, and recovery of assessed tax. Of course, the Board probably expects transfer of back-files from the assessing officer concerned to the Officer before whom the petitioner is to be assessed after shifting of residence. In the absence of any specific provision in Ext.P3 about pending assessments, and recovery of assessed tax. I feel, the assessing officer who made assessment, namely, third respondent continues to be the assessing officer for the purpose of recovery of tax assessed by him. In this case, the assessment in question is for the year 1998-99 and it is conceded by the petitioner that the third respondent had jurisdiction to complete the assessment and at the request of the petitioner, the original assessment completed for the year 1998-99 was rectified vide Ext.P1 order dated 18.7.2001 which is after the shifting of residence by the petitioner. In the circumstances, I hold that the third respondent continues to be the “assessing officer” for the purpose of recovery of tax assessed by him for the year 1998-99 also. It will be open to the department to transfer the files and if back files are transferred, then of course with effect from the date of its transfer the third respondent will cease to be the assessing officer, and the officer before whom file is transferred will continue to exercise powers of assessing officer over the petitioner subject to other circulars or orders. It is for the third respondent to complete recovery and transfer the file or otherwise transfer the files to enable the Officer at Bangalore to continue recovery proceedings. The Board is free to issue appropriate proceedings in the matter as Ext.P3 is silent about pending matters and recovery. Since I have held that garnishee proceedings are valid i.e., Exts.P5 to P9. It is open to the third respondent to proceed with recovery proceedings and forward the files after completion of recovery proceedings. O.P. is dismissed.