Under section 127(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the authority is required to give reasons for the transfer of cases, and the convenience of the assessee cannot override the need of the revenue for a better investigation of the case.

1. - Both these writ petitions are directed against the order, dated March 4, 1981, passed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (hereinafter referred to as "the Board") in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 127 of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), whereby the cases of the petitioners were transferred from the ITO, Trust Circle, Jaipur, to the ITO, X Ward, Bombay.

2. Shri Rishikul Vidyapeeth, Laxmangarh, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1245/81, is an educational institution registered under the Rajasthan Societies Registration Act, 1959. Shri Rishikul Brahmacharya Ashram, Laxmangarh, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1246/81, is said to be a part and parcel of Shri Rishikul Vidyapeeth. Both the petitioners aforesaid were earlier being assessed for the purpose of income-tax by the ITO, Sikar. Subsequently, in the year 1979, the Commissioner of Income-tax, Jaipur, transferred the cases of the petitioners from the ITO, Sikar, to the ITO, Trust Circle, Jaipur. By notice, dated July 17, 1980, sent by the Board, the petitioners were informed that the Board proposed to transfer their cases from the ITO, Trust Circle, Jaipur, to ITO, X Ward, Bombay, under section 127 of the Act in order to facilitate detailed and co-ordinated investigation at Bombay in the light of certain financial transactions conducted there and because connected cases were being assessed by the 5th ITO, X-Ward, Bombay. By the notice aforesaid the petitioners were informed that if they had any objection to the aforesaid proposal they may appear before Shri Avtar Singh, Member (Income-tax), of the Board, on August 25, 1980, and that in case they did not wish to appear personally they may state their objections in writing so as to reach the Board by August 25, 1980. In response to the said notice the petitioners submitted their objections dated August 16, 1980. Thereafter, the impugned order, dated March 4, 1981, was passed by the Board whereby the cases of the petitioners were transferred from the ITO, Trust Circle, Jaipur, to the ITO, X-Ward, Bombay. In the said order it is stated that the transfer is effected to facilitate the coordinated investigation along with other connected cases.

3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of transfer, the petitioners have filed these writ petitions wherein they have prayed that an appropriate writ, order or direction be issued to quash the notice, dated July 17, 1980, and the order dated March 4, 1981, and to restrain respondent No. 3, namely, the ITO, X-Ward, Bombay, from proceeding with the cases of the petitioners in pursuance of the order of transfer, dated March 4, 1981.

4. We have heard Shri G.S. Singhvi, the learned counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions.

5. Before dealing with the contentions urged by Shri Singhvi, it would be convenient to set out the provisions contained in section 127(1) of the Act which reads as under :

"127. (1) The Commissioner may, after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter, wherever it is possible to do so, and after recording his reasons for doing so, transfer any case from one or more of the following officers subordinate to him, namely :

(a) any Income-tax Officer or Income-tax Officers ;

(b) any Income-tax Officer or Income-tax Officers having concurrent jurisdiction with the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner,

to any other Income-tax Officer or Income-tax Officers (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction with the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner) also subordinate to him and the Board may similarly transfer any case from-

(i) any Income-tax Officer or Income-tax Officers, or

(ii) any Income-tax Officer or Income-tax Officers having concurrent jurisdiction with the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner,

to any other Income-tax Officer or Income-tax Officers (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction with the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner) ...... .."

6. The first contenti