P. K. TARE J. –

This order shall also govern the disposal of Misc. Petition No. 432 of 1968 - (Bedmutha and Co. v. Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi).

These two writ petitions under article 226 of the Constitution of India have been filed against the order of the first respondent, dated August 3, 1968 (petitioners annexure "C", in each case) transferring the cases pending against the respective petitioner at Indore to the Income Tax Officer, Bombay.

The first respondent issued a show cause notice, dated May 16, 1968 (petitioners annexure "A"), calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the cases pending at Indore should not be transferred to Bombay under section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The reason mentioned in the show-cause notice was "facility of investigation".

To that show-cause notice, the petitioner sent a reply, dated May 30, 1968 (petitioners annexure "B"), and thereafter the first respondent passed the order of transfer on August 3, 1968. The order of transfer itself does not give any reason as to why the case has been transferred from Indore to Bombay. It is pertinent to note at this stage that it is not the contention of the respondents that reasons for transfer have been recorded independently of the said order of transfer. Hence, this writ petitions challenging the said order of transfer. In this connection it may be relevant to note the provisions of section 127 of the Income Tax Act 1961, which is as follows :

"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 any Income Tax Officer or Income Tax Officers subordinate to him to any other Income Tax or Income Tax Officers also subordinate to him and the Board may similarly transfer any case from any Income Tax Officer or Income Tax Officer :

Provided further that where any case has been transferred from any Income Tax Officer or Income Tax Officers to two or more Income Tax Officers, the Income Tax Officers to whom the case is so transferred shall have concurrent jurisdiction over the case and shall perform such functions in relation to the said case as the Board or the Commissioner (or any Inspecting Assistant Commissioner authorised by the Commissioner in this behalf) may, by general or special order in writing, specify, for the distribution and allocation of the work to be performed.

(2) The transfer of a case under sub-section (1) may be made at any stage of the proceedings, and shall not render necessary the reissue of any notice already issued by the Income Tax Officer or Income Tax Officers from whom the case is transferred.

Explanation. - In this section and in section 121, 123, 124 and 125 the word case in relation to any person whose name is specified in any order or direction issued thereunder, means all proceedings under this Act in respect of any year which may be pending on the date of such order or direction or which may have been completed on or before such date, and includes also all proceedings under this Act which may be commenced after the date of such order or direction in respect of any year."

It was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the two essential ingredients of sub-section (1) of section 127 of the Act ought to be complied with before the Board or the Commissioner passes any order of transfer. The first one is that a reasonable opportunity of being heard ought to be given wherever it is possible to do so, and the second ingredient is that the authority passing the order of transfer should record its reasons for doing so. It is urged that the petitioner was neither given a reasonable opportunity of being heard, nor was any reason disclosed either in the show-cause notice or in the order of transfer. therefore, it is contended that the said order of transfer is vitiated and is not in compliance with the requirements of section 127 of t