By the Court.—Heard Sri Nikhil Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Manu Ghildyal, learned counsel for all the respondents.

2. The pleadings exchanged between the parties have also been perused.

3. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 20th October, 2016 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi under Section 127 of the Income Tax, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) whereby out of a group of cases of Sunworld Group of Companies, the case of the petitioner has been transferred from ITO, New Delhi to the Deputy Commissioner /Assistant Commissioner, Income Tax, Central Circle, NOIDA for the purpose of assessment.

4. The submission of Sri Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner is that before passing the impugned order of transfer, no personal hearing was given to the petitioner despite specific demand in this regard; the objections of the petitioner in response to the notice were not at all considered by the Principal Commissioner; and the report which forms basis of the order was not supplied to him.

5. Shri Ghildyal, defends the order by alleging that the objections of the petitioners were not found satisfactory and relying upon the report in this regard the case of the petitioner was transferred. The petitioner has participated in the assessment proceedings whereupon assessment order has also been passed. Therefore, the challenge to the transfer order in such a situation is meaningless.

6. It appears from the record that a search and seizure operations under Section 132 of the Act were carried out on 11th November, 2014 in the various premises of Sunworld Group of Companies including that of the petitioner, who happens to be one of the directors of the companies.

7. A show-cause notice dated 2nd May, 2016 was issued to the petitioner as to why the case of the petitioner may not be transferred from New Delhi to NOIDA before Deputy /Assistant C.I.T., Central Circle, Noida.

8. In response to the said notice, the petitioner furnished his reply on 16th May, 2016 inter alia contending that as most of the companies of the aforesaid group of companies are filing returns in Delhi, therefore it will be difficult to pursue cases in U. P., more particularly, when most of the companies are located out side U.P., except one. The petitioner be afforded personal hearing in the matter before any order is passed to transfer his case.

9. It may be pertinent to mention here that in all 48 companies of the group were involved, all of whom have their head offices in Delhi and out of which, 40 companies were filing returns in Delhi.

10. It appears from the record that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi invited comments on the above objections from the Deputy Director of Income Tax, NOIDA through Principal Commissioner of Tax (Central Kanpur) whereupon it was reported that the objections are not found to be satisfactory, the petitioner is one of the Directors of the aforesaid group of companies and that certain incriminating documents were found during search so the case of the petitioner cannot be separated from others.

11. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi, relying upon the aforesaid report, by the impugned order directed for the transfer of the case of the petitioner to the A.C.I.T. /D.C.I.T., Central NOIDA but without giving personal hearing to him.

12. Section 127(1) and (2) of the Act, for the sake of convenience are quoted below:

“Power to transfer cases

127. (1) The Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or 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 on or more Assessing Officers subordinate to him (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) to any other Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers (whether wit