A.J. Shastri, J.

1. These petitions are having identical set of circumstance as well as challenge contain therein is also almost similar, the petitions are being dealt with by this common judgment and order by treating SCA No. 4473 of 2016 as a lead matter.

2. The petition being SCA No. 4473 of 2016 is filed for the purpose of challenging legality and validity of an order dated 6.1.2016 passed in exercise of powers under Section 127(2) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 as also notices dated 26.2.2016 and 4.3.2016 whereby, the case of the petitioner is transferred by the respondent authority from Ahmedabad to Surat and the object shown therein while passing the order is for the purpose of coordinated investigation and assessment. The case has been ordered to be transferred from Ward No. 3(3) (9), Ahmedabad to DCIT, Central Circle-3, Surat.

2.1 So far as SCA No. 4474 of 2016 is concerned, therein also challenge is made by the petitioner to an order dated 6.1.2016 and consequential notice dated 4.3.2016 in which also the case of the petitioner is transferred from Ward No. 3(2)(2), Ahmedabad to DCIT, Central Circle-3, Surat.

2.2 Similarly, in SCA No. 4475 of 2016 is concerned, here also the legality, validity and propriety of an order dated 6.1.2016 as also notice dated 4.3.2016 came to be challenged whereby, the case of the petitioner came to be transferred from Ward No. 3(3)(4), Ahmedabad to DCIT, Central Circle-3, Surat.

3. The case of the petitioner in almost all the three matters is similar and since SCA No. 4473 of 2016 is treated as a lead matter, facts of the said case are taken into consideration while passing this common judgment and order.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that she is an individual having been regularly assessed with I.T.O., Ward-3(3)(9), Ahmedabad, was issued with a notice on 1.12.2015 by respondent No. 1 authority informing that pursuant to search proceeding carried out on 9.10.2014 in the case of one M/s. HVK International Group of Surat, it was proposed to transfer her case from Ahmedabad to Surat in exercise of powers under Section 127(2) of the Income-Tax Act in the interest of effective and coordinated investigation and assessment. For the purpose of said inclined transfer, an opportunity of being heard was provided to the petitioner in terms of Section 127(2)(a) of the Income-Tax Act by keeping the date of hearing on 22.12.2015 at 11.00 a.m. It is the case of the petitioner that upon receipt of the notice, the petitioner contacted her counsel in order to prepare an appropriate reply and proper representation before respondent No. 1 and for that purpose, a short adjournment of a day was sought from the authority as there was a pre-fixed professional commitment out of Ahmedabad. However, with a view to assess and in compliance with the notice, a detail reply was submitted by the petitioner in the office of respondent No. 1 on 21.12.2015 itself. As the request for adjournment was made, the authority, namely, respondent No. 1 has placed the matter for personal hearing on 23.12.2015 at 3.00 p.m. It was contended in the written submissions dated 21.12.2015, inter-alia, that the transfer of her case from Ahmedabad to Surat is not justified as there is no justifiable reasons for such proposed transfer. It was also submitted that even on the basis of coordinated investigation and assessment, the object of making such centralized investigation may not be achieved as the cases of one group are scattered at a different place before different assessing officer. While making such request, the petitioner has submitted that she has no connection of whatsoever nature or in any way related to said group, namely, M/s. HVK International Group, Surat rather she heard the name of this group for the first time. It was also asserted by her in the reply that there is not a single transaction either financial or accounting with the aforesaid group nor the petitioner had any transaction either in the diamond, jewellery or