(1.) WE propose to dispose of the bunch of civil rules by a common order. The petitioners have claimed their "different and distinct entities" but the Revenue described them as "Narula group". WE take the midpoint and call them as "the petitioners", for brevity and convenience. The facts are similar, the questions of law involved are also the same and our common anxieties are to deliver quick but deliberate justice. WE hasten to deliver oral judgment in court as one of us (Hansaria J.) is going to an outlying Bench for about two weeks.
(2.) THESE writ applications arise out of tax evasion proceedings. The petitioners have questioned the validity of the order dated May 10, 1982, passed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi, "the Board" for short, transferring the cases of the petitioners from the Income-tax Officer at Gauhati to the Income-tax Officer, Company Circle in New Delhi, in exercise of the power conferred by Section 127 of the I.T. Act, 1961, for short "the Act".
(3.) THE petitioners questioned the validity of the order of transfer in the original writ petition on the grounds: (1) that the order of transfer was passed without considering their objections; (2) that there was no reason or justification for the transfer from Gauhati to New Delhi, as they had no business connection at Delhi; (3) that no "reasonable opportunity of being heard" was granted to them, as the notices were served on them on February 9, 1982, fixing the date of hearing on February 10, 1982; (4) that the proposed reasons in the notice issued under Section 127 of the Act were basically different from the reasons recorded in the transfer order ; (5) that the transfers would cause hardship and inconvenience to the petitioners and it was colourable exercise of the power; and (6) that the conditions precedent for exercising power under Section 127, namely, reasonable opportunity of being heard and recording of the reasons were not done, and, as such the impugned orders were bad.