(V.M. Kanade, J):

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.

2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent heard forthwith.

3. The grievance of the petitioner in the petition inter alia is that the respondent authority has passed an order under Section 127(1) of the Income Tax Act, without giving any reasons whatsoever for transferring the case to further investigation from Goa to Delhi. Learned counsel in support of his submission has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ajantha Industries and others Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes and others, reported in 102 ITR 281 (SC). On the other hand learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revenue has relied on other judgments of Allahabad High Court, Jarkhand High Court and Bombay High Court in support of her submissions that it is permissible for authority to transfer a case from one place to another on the ground that coordination investigation is necessary.

4. We are of the view that the submissions made by learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner will have to be accepted in view of the ratio laid down by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ajantha Industries and others (supra). In the said case the Apex Court has observed as under:-

The short question that arises for consideration is whether failure to record the reasons in the order which was communicated to the appellants is violative to the principles of natural justice for which order is to he held invalid.

While considering this question after taking into consideration relevant provisions, the Apex court has observed as under:-

The reason for recording of reasons in the order and making these reasons known to the assessee is to unable an opportunity to the assessee to approach the High Court under its Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or even this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India in an appropriate case for challenging the order, inter alia either on the ground that it is mala fide or arbitrary or that it is based on irrelevant or extraneous considerations.

Whether such a writ or special leave application ultimately fails is not relevant for a decision of the question. We are clearly of the opinion that the requirement of recording reasons under Section 127(1) is a mandatory direction under the law and non-communication thereof is not saved by showing that the reasons exist in the file although not communicated to the assessee.

5. The Apex Court in the said judgment has overruled the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of SunandaRani Jain Vs. Union of India, reported in (1975) 99 ITR 391 and other decisions of Andhra Pradesh High Court.

6. In our view ratio of the said judgment squarely applies to the facts of the present case. In the impugned order which has been passed under Section 127(1) by the Commissioner of Income Tax has merely stated in the said order that for the purpose of co-ordinating investigation, it is necessary to transfer the case to New Delhi.

7. In our view merely mentioning this reason that it is necessary to transfer it for coordinated investigation is not sufficient in view of the clear observation made by the Apex Court in the case of Ajanthan Industries (supra) where it has been mentioned that the reasons have to be recorded in the order and, as such, the commissioner ought to have given reasons why co-ordination investigation is necessary. There cannot be any dispute that the case can be transferred for the purpose of co-ordianting investigation but why the commissioner feel that is necessary to transfer the case for co-ordinated investigation has to be at least briefly stated in the said order.

8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revenue has relied on the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of One-up Shares and Stock Brokers(P) Ltd Vs. R.R. Singh, CIT (2003) 262 ITR 275 (Bom). In the said case t