- (1.) ALL the abovementioned writ petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment.
(2.) WE have heard Shri V.K. Upadhyay and Shri Vikram Gulati, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Rajesh Kumar Agarwal for the Department. The petitioners have challenged the impugned order dated April 29, 1994, under Section 127(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, a true copy of which, is annexure-10 to the writ petition, by which the Commissioner of Income-tax has transferred certain cases of the petitioners from Kanpur, U. P. to Raipur, in M. P. "Shri Upadhyay has firstly contended that under Section 127 of the Income-tax Act, it was incumbent upon the Commissioner to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner which he had not done. This allegation has been made in paragraphs 11 and 13 to the writ petition. In reply Shri Rajesh Kumar Agarwal has invited our attention to paragraph 10 to the counter-affidavit, wherein it has been stated that the petitioners had themselves filed objection dated March 30, 1994, before the Commissioner of Income-tax, true copy of which is annexure-10 to the counter-affidavit. This objection has also been annexed in annexure-4 to the writ petition. Shri Agarwal has submitted that since the petitioners , had themselves filed the objection to the proposed transfer, hence, merely because they had not been given notice by the Commissioner of Income-tax, the impugned order of transfer would not be vitiated.
(3.) WE do not agree with this submission of learned standing counsel. In our opinion, a notice has to be given under Section 127 whenever it is proposed to transfer the case from one officer to another and this notice must briefly indicate the reasons why it is proposed to transfer the case, since otherwise the assessee would not know on what basis the case is proposed to be transferred and would not be able to meet the said notice. The same view has been taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of V. K. Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 403.;