The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of giving notice under Section 127 of the Income-tax Act when proposing to transfer a case, and the serious infirmity of non-communication of the transfer order rendering the order invalid.

1. ALL the abovementioned writ petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment.

2. WE have heard Shri V.K. Upadhyay and Shri Vikram Gulati, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Rajesh Kumar Agarwal for the Department.

The petitioners have challenged the impugned order dated April 29, 1994, under Section 127(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, a true copy of which, is annexure-10 to the writ petition, by which the Commissioner of Income-tax has transferred certain cases of the petitioners from Kanpur, U. P. to Raipur, in M. P.

3. "SHRI Upadhyay has firstly contended that under Section 127 of the Income-tax Act, it was incumbent upon the Commissioner to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner which he had not done. This allegation has been made in paragraphs 11 and 13 to the writ petition. In reply SHRI Rajesh Kumar Agarwal has invited our attention to paragraph 10 to the counter-affidavit, wherein it has been stated that the petitioners had themselves filed objection dated March 30, 1994, before the Commissioner of Income-tax, true copy of which is annexure-10 to the counter-affidavit. This objection has also been annexed in annexure-4 to the writ petition. SHRI Agarwal has submitted that since the petitioners, had themselves filed the objection to the proposed transfer, hence, merely because they had not been given notice by the Commissioner of Income-tax, the impugned order of transfer would not be vitiated.

4. WE do not agree with this submission of learned standing counsel. In our opinion, a notice has to be given under Section 127 whenever it is proposed to transfer the case from one officer to another and this notice must briefly indicate the reasons why it is proposed to transfer the case, since otherwise the assessee would not know on what basis the case is proposed to be transferred and would not be able to meet the said notice.

The same view has been taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of V. K. Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 403.

5. IN the present case, it may be noticed that the petitioners had no doubt filed some objection before the Commissioner of Income-tax, dated March 30, 1994, objecting to the proposed transfer, but it was evident that this was so done because the petitioners got some information that the respondents are going to transfer their cases. IN our opinion, mere filing of the objection does not comply with the requirement of Section 127 of the Income-tax Act because as already stated above, unless the assessees know the reasons for the proposed transfer, they will not be able to properly meet the basis for the proposed transfer. Moreover, it may also be pointed out that the averments made in the objection dated March 30, 1994, have not been dealt with in the impugned transfer order and for this reason also the said order is vitiated.

6. IT is obvious that when certain factual allegations are made in the objections of the assessee, they have to be dealt with, otherwise the very purpose of hearing would be frustrated. In their objections, the petitioners had specifically mentioned that all the concerns of the family barring a few which were recently established are being assessed at Kanpur and they were paying a good amount of tax in Kanpur. They had also mentioned that the accounts of all the concerns of the family are maintained at Kanpur and only manufacturing and trading activities are conducted at Bhilai. Hence it was incumbent upon the Commissioner of Income-tax to deal with the said averments which he has hot done in the impugned order and for this reason also the impugned order has been vitiated.

That apart the petitioners have alleged in paragraphs 11 and 13 to the writ petition that the transfer order has not been communicated to them. It has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Ajantha Industries v. CBDT [1976] 102 ITR 281 that non-communication of the transfer order is a serious infirmity and hence the order was inv