SATISH CHANDRA, J. - (1.) THE DBDT passed an order dt. 19th July, 1975 purporting to be under S. 127 (1) of the IT Act, 1961 transferring the cases under the IT Act, of the petitioner-assessee from the jurisdiction of the ITO, A-ward, Moradabad, to the ITO, District-1 (2) Addl., New Delhi. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner was not communicated the reasons, if any, which were recorded to sustain this order. Reliance has been placed on Ajantha Industries vs. DBDT 1976 CTR (SC) 79 : 102 ITR 281 SC, where the Supreme Court held that the requirement of recording reasons under s. 127 (1) of the IT Act, 1961 for the transfer of a case from one ITO to another, is a mandatory direction under the law and non-communication thereof to the assessee is not saved by showing that the reasons exist in the file, although not communicated to the assessee. This case is applicable to the petitioner on all four hours. The impugned order was potently erroneous in law.
(2.) THE writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dt. 19th July, 1975 is quashed. The petitioner will be entitled to costs.;