B.K. Sharma, J.

1. Heard Mr. Kanan Kapoor, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. U. Bhuyan, learned standing Counsel, IT Department.

2. This writ petition is directed against the order dt. 1st Aug., 2007 (Annex. B) by which the writ petitioner was directed to furnish true and correct return of income regarding asst. yr. 2000-01 in respect of which the petitioner was shown assessable as an assessee. The notice further provides that the return should be furnished in the form as prescribed in Sub-rule (1) of Rule 12 of the IT Rules, 1962 and should be delivered in the office within 15 days after service of the notice. In the last para of the notice, it has been stated as follows:

It is also being intimated to you that vide order Memo No. 18/127/Centralisation/Crr/GHY-II/02-03/1365-69 dt. 24th July, 2007 of the CIT, Guwahati-II, Guwahati jurisdiction over your case has been transferred to this office and therefore, you are requested to direct all your Income Tax related correspondence to this office and from now onwards IT returns are also to be filed in this office only.

3. From the above what is seen is that by an order dt. 24th July, 2007 passed by the CIT, Guwahati-II, Guwahati jurisdiction over the petitioner had been transferred to the office of the Asstt. CIT, Central Circle-5, New Delhi and accordingly the petitioner was requested to make all the Income Tax related correspondences to the said office.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that he was never intimated about the order dt. 24th July, 2007 and no reason whatsoever was assigned to him towards transferring the jurisdiction from Guwahati to New Delhi.

5. By Annex. A notice dt. 10th July, 2007 issued under Section 142(1) of the IT Act, 1961, the petitioner was directed to prepare true and correct return of his income in respect of the asst. yr. 2005-06 and to submit the same to the AO who is the Asstt. CIT, Circle-3, Guwahati.

6. Mr. Kapoor, learned Counsel for the petitioner upon a reference to the provision of Section127(1) of the Act, submits that the impugned order is palpably illegal being violative of the said provision and thus it requires to be interfered with. He has also placed reliance on the decision of the apex Court in Ajantha Industries and Ors. v. CBDT and Ors. 1976 CTR (SC) 79 : (1976) 102 ITR 281 (SC) as well as the decisions in Naresh Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India and Ors. (2009) 25 DTR (Cat) 215 : (2010) 320 ITR 361 (Cal) and Vijayasanthi Investments (P) Ltd. v. Chief CIT and Ors. (1991) 91 CTR (AP) 36 : (1991) 187 ITR 405 (AP).

7. Referring to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, Mr. Kapoor, learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the order dt. 24th July, 2007 purportedly passed under Section 127of the IT Act, 1961 does not disclose any reason whatsoever. The reasons for transfer as have been disclosed in the said order dt. 24th July, 2007 is "administrative convenience and co-ordinating and effective investigation". He submits that the reasons shown in the order dt. 24th July, 2007 being vague and indefinite, same cannot be said to be in compliance of the requirements of the reasons to be assigned as per the provisions of Section 127(1) of the Act.

8. Mr. U. Bhuyan, learned standing Counsel, IT Department, on the other hand, supporting the aforesaid order dt. 24th July, 2007, submits that the reasons assigned in the order being sufficient, the Writ Court exercising its power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, will be reluctant to interfere with the same. He submits that if the petitioner is aggrieved by non-furnishing of the notice, it is always open for him to approach the authority for such notice with reasons.

9. I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties as well as the materials on record. In the rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner has submitted that he being a permanent resident of Guwahati and having regard to his background and root in Guwa