R.K. Agrawal and Rajes Kumar, JJ. - (1.) BY means of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 Constitution of India, the petitioners seeks the following relief: (a) issue, a writ order or certiorari, calling for the relevant of the direction in the nature of records, to quash the impugned order No. 17/2004 -05 dated 18 -06 -2004 passed by the respondents No. Under Section 127(2) of the Income Tax Act, (b) issue, a writ or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent not to give effect to the impugned order dated 18 -6 -2004 (Annexure -1) and in pursuance thereto no record of the Company be transferred from Kanpur to Mumbai. (C) issue, a writ order or direction in the nature of ad -interim mandamus staying the operation and effect of the impugned order dated 18 -6 -2004 (Annexure -1) during the pendency of the present Writ Petition before this Hon'ble Court, and further direct the respondents not to transfer the. records of the petitioner Company from Kanpur to Mumbai or else great hardship and inconvenience shall be caused to the petitioner who shall suffer irreparable loss and injury. (d) Any such order or farther orders be passed in favour of the Petitioners as this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper in the present facts and circumstances of the case, so as to secure the ends of justice. (e) Costs of the proceedings be kindly awarded in favour of the petitioner."
(2.) THE petitioner No. 1 is public limited company of which petitioner No. 2 and 3 are Directors. They are being assessed to income tax at Kanpur by the Additional Commissioner of Income tax Range - IV, Kannpur, A notice under Section 127(2)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act) was issued by Commissioner of Income Tax -I, Kanpur proposing to transfer the cases from the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range -IV, Kanpur to the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -VIII, Mumbai. The petitioner submitted their objection reply on 18.12.2003 objecting to the proposed transfer The Commissioner of Income - tax -II, Kanpur vide order dated 18.06.2004 had transferred the assessment cases of the petitioners from Additional Income Tax, range -4, Kanpur to the Deputy Commissioner lncome -tax Central Circle -VIII, Mumbai a copy of which has been annexed as annexure No. 1 to the present writ petition. The order dated 18.06.2004 is under challenge in the present writ petition on the. ground that the Commissioner of Income Tax while transferring the cases land not given any reasons nor has dealt with the various objections raised by the petitioner. We have heard Sri Sant Sharan Upadhyaya, learned counsel, for the petitioner and Sri Shambhu Chopra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submitted that under Sub -section (2) of Section 127 of the Act, the Director General or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner have been empowered to transfer any case from one or more assessing officers to any other assessing officer where they are not subordinate to the same Director General or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner etc. after recording reasons and giving reasonable opportunity of being heard. According to the learned counsel in the present case, even though opportunity of hearing was given but no reasons have been recorded for transferring the cases. He submitted that the order dated 18.06.2004 is in violation and contravention of the provision of Sub -section (2) of Section 127 of the Act and therefore, the said order is liable to be set aside. Sri Shambu Chopra, learned Standing Counsel submitted that as in the present case there has been a search and seizure in the business premises of the petitioners, in view of the guidelines framed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes to the effect that in search cases all the cases should be centralised at one place cases have been transferred from Kanpur to Mumbai. He further submitted that in the  show cause notice reasons for proposed transfer cases which is a valid reason.;