Samaresh Banerjea, J. - (1.) The present writ applications have been heard analogously with items Nos. (3) to (9) as appearing under the heading "for order", common question of law and fact being involved.
(2.) In each of the writ applications, the petitioner has challenged an order passed by respondent No. 1, Commissioner of Income-tax, Central-II, Calcutta, under Section 127(1)/127(2) of the Income-tax Act, transferring all the cases of the petitioner from the present Assessing Officer in Calcutta to the Assessing Officer at Patna. Since the point which has been raised by the writ petitioner in the instant application really involved a pure question of law and both the parties have addressed the court in full on the questions of law even at the admission stage, I have decided to dispose of the writ application on such questions of law without any affidavit and the parties to the proceedings do not object to such proposal.
(3.) The main challenge of the writ petitioner to the aforesaid order passed under Section 127 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is that such transfer has been made denying reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is not disputed by the parties that each of the petitioners in each of the cases was issued with a show-cause notice proposing to transfer the case in exercise of power under Section 127 of the Act. And that each of the petitioners also replied to such show-cause notice and was heard and was given a hearing.;