An order dated 12-3-2022 under section 127(2) was passed by Income-tax Officer, Chandigarh transferring case of assessee to Income-tax Officer at New Delhi.  Transfer order it was stated that  the  said order would come into effect immediately with effect from 12-3-2022. Notice under section 148A(b) was issued  on 22-3-2022 by Income-tax Officer, Shimla to reopen its assessment.  When the notice was issued the  assessee had brought this fact of transfer of its case to notice of revenue in his response on Portal given on 28-3-2022. Order dt. 12-3-2022 issued under section 127(2) was also available on Income-tax Portal. On writ the petitioner contended that  notice under section 148A(b) issued to assessee was without jurisdiction. It was contended that merely because Income-tax Officer, Chandigarh failed to transfer PAN of assessee to Income-tax Officer at New Delhi, same would not mean that Income-tax officer, Shimla still had jurisdiction to issue reopening notice upon assessee. Allowing the petition the Court held that since transfer of jurisdiction was done on 15-3-2022, notice dated 22-3-2022 issued under section 148A(b) and further order passed under section 148A(d) and notice issued under section 148 were unjustified.  Court also held that   the existence of alternative remedy is not absolute u bar  for entertaining  the writ petition.  Relied on  Calcutta  Discount Co Ltd v. ITO (1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC),  Jeens Knit Pvt Ltd v. Dy. CIT (2017) 390 ITR 10 (SC), Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Prabhas Chandra Mirdha (2012) 11 SCC 565, Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai  (1998)m 8SCC  565,     CIT v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal  (2013) 357 ITR 357 (SC), distinguished. (AY. 2015-16)