THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA Writ Petition No.18985 of 2025 and Writ Petition No.19007 of 2025 COMMON ORDER:(per Hon’ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSHY Since the issue arising in the instant writ petitions is one and the same, we proceed to decide the instant petitions by this Common Order.

2. Heard Mr. Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr.V. Aneesh, learned counsel for the petitioners, in both the writ petitions; and Ms. B.Sapna Reddy, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department, for the respondents, in both the writ petitions.

3. Writ Petition No.18985 of 2025 is filed by the petitioner- Company under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying the Court to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned order dated 27.01.2025 bearing DIN & Order No.ITBA/COM/F/17/2024-25/1072556157(1) passed by respondent No.2 as being without jurisdiction, void, illegal, arbitrary, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and also violation of Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; and Writ Petition No.19007 of 2025 is filed by the petitioners (Directors of Shreeji Foods Private Limited) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying the Court to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned order dated 27.01.2025 bearing DIN & Order No.ITBA/COM/F/17/2024- 25/1072556157(1) (for short, ‘the impugned order’) passed by respondent No.2 as being without jurisdiction, void, illegal, arbitrary, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and also violate of Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’)

4. Vide the impugned order, the respondents have transferred the assessment proceedings of the petitioners outside the State, i.e., from Hyderabad it has been ordered to be transferred to Delhi.

5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners canvassed primarily three grounds to assail the above impugned order, viz., (a) denial of a fair opportunity of hearing as is required under Section 127 of the Act; (b) the impugned order dated 27.01.2025 being technically and procedurally flawed inasmuch as the Officer who has proposed for transferring the file from Hyderabad to Delhi is of the rank of Chief Commissioner whereas the Officer who has accepted the said proposal and has agreed for the transfer is an Officer of the rank of Principal Commissioner; thus, it is in contravention of the provisions of Section 127(2)(a) of the Act; and (c) no sufficient reasons have been have been disclosed to the petitioners before transferring the file from Hyderabad to Delhi.

6. In support of his contentions, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners relied on the following decisions rendered by different Courts, viz., Noorul Islam Educational Trust vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-I, (2017) 12 S.C.C. 805 Herambh Anandrao Shelke vs. M.L. Karmakar Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax-2, 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 2109; Achintya Securities

Private Limited vs. Union of India, 32024 :AHC : 40018-DB (Allahabad High Court); Kamal Varandmal Galani vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-194; and Shikshana Prasaraka Mandali vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax5

7. On the other hand, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department, appearing for the respondents, opposing the petitions, contended that the impugned order, when it is read as a whole, would by itself reveal that the order is strictly in accordance with the provisions of Section 127, and that all the parameters enshrined therein have been met and that there are no violations whatsoever of any provisions of the Act in the course of passing of the transfer order. Lastly, she contended that the impugned order is one which has been passed in January, 2025 and immediately thereafter the said order was acted upon and the assessing off