M K RAJENDRAN PILLAI V. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND 4 ORS

WP(C)/33/2019

AI Insights

The case involves a series of writ petitions filed by M K Rajendran Pillai and his family members against the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jorhat, and others, challenging the transfer of their income tax cases from Dimapur, Nagaland to Kollam, Kerala. The petitioners argued that the transfer was done without proper notice and opportunity to be heard, violating principles of natural justice. The respondents contended that the transfer was necessary for a coordinated investigation following a search and seizure operation at the petitioners' premises. The court examined the procedural compliance in issuing notices and the substantive reasons for the transfer, ultimately dismissing the petitions.

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 766782 (HC-MISC)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 25-09-2019
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Mul Chand Malu and others vs. Union of India and others, Pr. CIT \\u2013 1 vs. Atlanta Capital Pvt. Ltd., Aamby Valley Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Rathi and Company vs. Union of India and others, Continental Milkose (India) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and others, Trimurti Fragrances (P) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax & another
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: S SHARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: A TODI
• Keywords: Assessment; Case transfer; Centralization; Income Tax; Natural Justice
• Section: 132; 153A; 127(2)(a)

Judgement Text

"Page No.# 1/33 GAHC020000952019 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : WP(C) 33/2019 1:M K RAJENDRAN PILLAI S/O LT. N. KRISHNA PILLAI, C/O AUTO SPARES. CIRCULAR ROAD, DIMAPUR, N/L VERSUS 1:PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND 4 ORS , JORHAT , BHAWAN, 1ST FLOOR, THANA ROAD, JORHAT, ASSAM 2:CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON UNDER THE MINSTRY OF FINANCE (DEPT. REVENUE) GOVT. OF INDIA NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI 3:THE DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DIMAPUR PURANA BAZAR KALIBARI ROAD DIMAPUR N/L 4:THE DEPTUY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-KOLLAM KERELA 5:UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE GOVT. OF INDIA NEW DELH Advocate for the Petitioner : A. TODI Page No.# 2/33 Advocate for the Respondent : S. SARMA Linked Case : WP(C) 36/2019 1:VALSALA RAJ PILLAI W/O SRI M K RAJENDRAN PILLAI C/O AUTO SPARES CIRCULAR ROAD DIMAPUR N/L VERSUS 1:PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JORHAT AND 4 ORS AAYKAR BHAWAN 1ST FLOOR THANA ROAD JORHAT ASSAM 2:CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON UNDER THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE(DEPT. OF REVENUE) GOVT. OF INDIA NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI 3:THE DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DIMAPUR PURANA BAZAR KALIBARI ROAD DIMAPUR N/L 4:THE DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-KOLLAM KERELA 5:UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE GOVT. OF INDIA NEW DELHI Page No.# 3/33 Advocate for the Petitioner : A. TODI Advocate for the Respondent : S. SARMA Linked Case : WP(C) 34/2019 1:ARUN RAJ PILLAI S/O SRI M K RAJENDRAN PILLAI C/O AUTO SPARES CIRCULAR ROAD DIMAPUR N/L VERSUS 1:PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JORHAT AND 4 ORS AAYKAR BHAWAN 1ST FLOOR THANA ROAD JORHAT ASSAM 2:CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON UNDER THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE(DEPT. OF REVENUE) GOVT. OF INDIA NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI 3:THE DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DIMAPUR PURANA BAZAR KALIBARI ROAD DIMAPUR N/L 4:THE DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-KOLLAM KERELA 5:UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE GOVT. OF INDIA NEW DELHI Advocate for the Petitioner : A. TODI Page No.# 4/33 Advocate for the Respondent : S. SARMA Linked Case : WP(C) 35/2019 1:VARUN RAJ PILLAI S/O SRI M K RAJENDRAN PILLAI C/O AUTO SPARES CIRCULAR ROAD DIMAPUR N/L VERSUS 1:PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JORHAT AND 4 ORS AAYKAR BHAWAN 1ST FLOOR THANA ROAD JORHAT ASSAM 2:CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON UNDER THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE(DEPT. OF REVENUE) GOVT. OF INDIA NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI 3:THE DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DIMAPUR PURANA BAZAR KALIBARI ROAD DIMAPUR N/L 4:THE DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-KOLLAM KERELA 5:UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE GOVT. OF INDIA NEW DELHI Advocate for the Petitioner : A.TODI Advocate for the Respondent : S. SARMA Page No.# 5/33 Linked Case : WP(C) 38/2019 1:VRINDABAN BUILDERS PVT. LTD A COMPANY HAVING ITS OFFICE AND PLACE OF BUSINESS AT OPPOSITE NST WORKSHOP DIMAPUR N/L REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR SMTI. VALSALA RAJ PILLAI VERSUS 1:PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JORHAT AND 4 ORS AAYKAR BHAWAN 1ST FLOOR THANA ROAD JORHAT ASSAM 2:CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON UNDER THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE(DEPT. OF REVENUE) GOVT. OF INDIA NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI 3:THE DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DIMAPUR PURANA BAZAR KALIBARI ROAD DIMAPUR N/L 4:THE DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-KOLLAM KERELA 5:UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE GOVT OF INDIA NEW DELHI Advocate for the Petitioner : A. TODI Advocate for the Respondent : S. SARMA Page No.# 6/33 Linked Case : WP(C) 37/2019 1:SREEVALSAM JEWELLERS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT DIMAPUR N/L AND AT PANDALAM ADOOR REPRESENTED BY ONE OF ITS PARTNER SRI VARUN PILLAI VERSUS 1:PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JORHAT AND 4 ORS AAYKAR BHAWAN 1ST FLOOR THANA ROAD JORHAT ASSAM 2:CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON UNDER THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE(DEPT. OF REVENUE) GOVT. OF INDIA NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI 3:THE DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DIMAPUR PURANA BAZAR KALIBARI ROAD DIMAPUR N/L 4:THE DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-KOLLAM KERELA 5:UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE GOVT. OF INDIA NEW DELHI Advocate for the Petitioner : A. TODI Advocate for the Respondent : S. SARMA Linked Case : WP(C) 39/2019 1:POOJA RAJ PILLAI Page No.# 7/33 D/O SRI M K RAJENDRAN PILLAI C/O AUTO SPARES CIRCULAR ROAD DIMAPUR N/L VERSUS 1:PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JORHAT AND 4 ORS AAYKAR BHAWAN 1ST FLOOR THANA ROAD JORHAT ASSAM 2:CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON UNDER THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE(DEPT. OF REVENUE) GOVT. OF INDIA NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI 3:THE DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DIMAPUR PURANA BAZAR KALIBARI ROAD DIMAPUR N/L 4:THE DEPTUY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-KOLLAM KERELA 5:UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE GOVT. OF INDIA NEW DELHI Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. M.L.GOPE MR.A.TODI MS.P.S.CHAKRABORTY MR.PFOSEKHO PFOTTE Advocate for the Respondent : S. SARMA Page No.# 8/33 BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY Date : 25-09-2019 JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV) Heard Ms. M.L. Gope, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S. Sharma, learned Senior Standing Counsel, Income Tax Department appearing for the respondent nos. 1 to 4. 2. As the subject-matters in this batch of writ petitions, preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, are analogous and inter-connected with each other, the same are heard together at the motion stage itself in terms of the earlier orders of this Court. On 31.07.2019, the Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties at some length and upon consideration of the facts of the cases, had adjourned the cases to 19.08.2019 on the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners observing that the Court was not inclined to adjourn the cases. On 19.08.2019, the cases were adjourned till 23.08.2019 on the same ground. Accordingly, the writ petitions are taken up for disposal as agreed to by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the necessary parties and as the exchange of pleadings between the necessary parties have already been completed. The affidavits-in-opposition have been filed in all the writ petitions by the respondent Income Tax Department and the petitioners have also filed their affidavits-in-reply to the said affidavits-in-opposition. 3. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 34(K)/2019 is a son of the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 33 (K)/2019. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 35(K)/2019 is also a son of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 33(K)/2019. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 36(K)/2019 and the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 39(K)/2019 are the wife and the daughter respectively of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 33(K)/2019. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 37(K)/2019 is a partnership firm, which is represented by one of its partners, who is the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 35(K)/2019. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 38(K) is a private limited company, which is represented by one of its Directors, Page No.# 9/33 who is the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 36(K)/2019. 4. The petitioners are aggrieved by the fact that cases of assessment of Income Tax of the petitioners have been transferred by way of centralization from Dimapur in the State of Nagaland to the jurisdiction of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (ACIT), Central Circle - Kollam, Kerala by orders dated 18.07.2018, all issued by the respondent no. 1 i.e. the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jorhat purportedly exercising powers under Section 127(2)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which, they have alleged, are done without giving them proper notices and the opportunities of being heard. The petitioners have, in unison, prayed for setting aside of the said impugned orders, all dated 18.07.2018, and the subsequent notices issued to them under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the office of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (ACIT), Central Circle - Kollam, Kerala. 5. The case of the petitioners is that they are regular assesses under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”, in short). A search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Act was conducted on 08.06.2017 at various business as well as residential premises of M/s Sreevalsam Group. The promoter of M/s Sreevalsam Group (“the Group”, in short) is the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 33 (K)/2019. Pursuant to the said search and seizure, show cause notices dated 07.12.2017, under Section 127(2) of the Act, were issued to the petitioners asking them to represent as to why the proposal to transfer their cases from the ACIT, Circle – Dimapur or the ITO, Ward – I, Dimapur, as the case may be, in the State of Nagaland to the ACIT, Central Circle – Kollam in the State of Kerala should not be given effect to for the purpose of centralization and for a co-ordinated investigation. In response to the said notices dated 07.12.2017, the petitioners had submitted their representations objecting to the said proposal for transfer of their cases for the purposes indicated therein, submitting, inter-alia, that all of them are ordinarily residents of Nagaland and that the proposal for centralization of their cases was without any reason and it was based on vague generalities. Thereafter, the respondent no. 1 i.e. the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jorhat passed orders, all dated 27.02.2018, transferring the cases of the petitioners to the ACIT, Central Circle - Kollam, Kerala. Page No.# 10/33 6. Assailing the said orders dated 27.02.2018, the petitioners had preferred 7 (seven) nos. of writ petitions, W.P.(C) No. 42(K)/2018, W.P.(C) No. 43(K)/2018, W.P.(C) No. 44(K)/2018, W.P.(C) No. 45(K)/2018, W.P.(C) No. 46(K)/2018, W.P.(C) No. 47(K)/2018 & W.P.(C) No. 48(K)/2018, on the grounds that the respondents did not give an opportunity, by not assigning any reason in the show cause notices, to the petitioners to give effective responses with regard to the proposal for centralization of their cases. For ready reference, the contents of the notice dated 07.12.2017 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition), sent to the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 33(K)/2019, are extracted herein:- “GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE : DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE OFFICE OF THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXES :: JORHAT 785001/AAYAKAR BHAWAN, THANA ROAD, JORHAT-785001 No. T-11/Search & Seizure/Pr.CIT/JRT/2017-18/3151-52 To, Shri MKK Rajendra Pillai, Addl. S.P., Police Headquarters, Kohima, Nagaland-797 001 Sub: Notice u/s 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, - transfer of your case (PAN: AGJPR7612L) from ACIT, Circle-Dimapur to ACIT, Central Circle – Kollam. Director General of Income-Tax(Inv), Kochi vide letter No. DG(Inv)/Tech- 8(A)/2017-18 dated 04/10/2017 has intimated the Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income-Tax, NER, Guwahati that consequence upon search & seizure operation conducted over M/s. Sreevalsam Group of cases, it has been proposed by the JDIT(Inv), Trivandrum to centralize the group cases to ACIT, Central Circle, Page No.# 11/33 Kollam for coordinated investigation. It has been decided by the Pr.CCIT, NER, Guwahati vide his letter F.No. C-9/CCIT(NER)/Ghy/Tech/2017-18/20654 dated 20/24-11-2017 to centralize the group cases with ACIT, Circle - Kollam (copy enclosed). Therefore, it is proposed to pass an order u/s 127(2) of Income Tax Act, 1961, to centralize your case from the ACIT, Circle - Dimapur, to ACIT, Central Circle – Kollam. You are hereby provided with an opportunity to represent your case either in person or through authorized representative or by way of written submission on 26/12/2017 at 11.30 AM in the office of undersigned at Aayakar Bhawan, 1st Floor, Thana Road, Jorhat-785001. If no reply is received it will be presumed that you have no objection to the proposed transfer of your case. Sd/- Illegible (Shishir Jha) Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jorhat” 7. All the afore-mentioned 7 (seven) writ petitions were disposed of by a common judgment and order dated 03.04.2018, whereby, the notices dated 07.12.2017 and the orders dated 27.02.2018, issued under Section 127(2) of the Act, were set aside observing that the respondents did not convey the reasons for the proposed transfer of the cases of the petitioners to the ACIT, Central Circle - Kollam, Kerala. The respondents were, however, given the liberty to issue fresh notices to the petitioners under Section 127 of the Act, if they intend to centralize the cases of the petitioners to the ACIT, Central Circle – Kollam, Kerala and in doing so, the respondents should give reasons for the said proposal for transfer of the cases of the petitioners as to why centralization should be done at the ACIT, Central Circle - Kollam, Kerala. 8. This batch of writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners assailing the orders, all dated 18.07.2018, passed by the respondent no. 1 i.e. the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jorhat, whereby, the cases of the petitioners have once again been transferred from the ACIT, Circle - Dimapur or the ITO, Ward - 1, Page No.# 12/33 Dimapur, as the case may be, in the State of Nagaland to the ACIT, Central Circle – Kollam in the State of Kerala in exercise of the powers conferred under sub- section (2) of Section 127 of the Act. 9. Ms. Gope, learned counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that one of the grounds of challenge is that the respondent authorities by the impugned orders dated 18.07.2018 have once again transferred the cases of the petitioners without serving a notice to show cause on them and, as such, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside on this ground alone. It is further contended that in the impugned orders, mention was made of two show cause notices, dated 23.05.2018 and dated 26.06.2018 respectively, which were stated to have been served on the petitioners but the second notice dated 26.06.2018 had never been served on the petitioners. It is further contended that the first notice dated 23.05.2018 had also not been served at the registered addresses of the petitioners on which earlier notices were sent and therefore, it did not come to their notice. It is also contended that the impugned orders dated 18.07.2018 contained the quotation of the details of one of the notices, a perusal of which would make it apparent that the said notice also did not contain the reasons for which centralization of the cases of the petitioners were required to be transferred from Dimapur to Kollam. As the notices dated 23.05.2018 were not served at the registered addresses of the petitioners wherein the earlier notices were issued to them, for reasons best known to the respondent authorities, and in view of such service of the notices at one place in Kerala, the same had escaped notices of the petitioners for a long time. Further, the notices did not contain any time limit within which the petitioners were required to submit replies showing cause in respect of the proposal to transfer the cases to Kollam or otherwise. The reasons given in the notices dated 23.05.2018 were vague reasons from which it cannot be understood as to why the cases of the petitioners could not be centralized in Dimapur where each of the individual petitioners resides and where the head office of the M/s Sreevalsam Group is present. Placing reliance on Section 127 of the Act it is averred that as the matters involve transfer of the cases from one Assessing Authority in one State to another Assessing Authority in another State, under the control and supervision of Page No.# 13/33 different superior authorities such transfer of cases had to be preceded by a valid notice, followed by an effective opportunity of furnishing reply and hearing. The learned counsel for the petitioners has further referred to Rule 127 of the Income Tax Rules to submit that the addresses to which the notices dated 23.05.2018 and dated 26.06.2018 were sent and stated to be delivered and/or wherefrom the same were returned undelivered as unclaimed were not addresses where delivery of such notices was permitted. 10. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the appropriate reason must be disclosed in the notice itself and the failure to do so would vitiate the notice as well as the transfer order which is passed in consequence of an inadequate notice. The notice must indicate the reasons as to why it is necessary to transfer the cases from one place to the other but in the instant cases, the notices dated 23.05.2018 did not meet the requirements and as such, the entire proceeding which is quasi judicial in nature, is vitiated having fallen short of the principles of natural justice. The ground of transfer which must have nexus with administrative convenience and co-ordinated investigation is apparently missing in the instant cases. With the intention not to provide reasonable opportunity to the petitioners to file their replies in the matter of transfer, the respondent authorities had arbitrarily and illegally served the notices on the petitioners–assessees at wrong addresses instead of serving the same at their registered addresses. The entire proceeding followed by the respondent authorities, subsequent to the common judgment and order dated 03.04.2018 of this Court, are in violation of the direction contained in the said order and in view of the same, the impugned orders, all dated 18.17.2018 and passed ex–parte, are liable to be set aside. It is contended by the learned counsel that just because some of the offices of the petitioners are in Kerala, the same does not give license to the officers of the respondent authorities in Kerala to have vested with the jurisdiction to make assessment of income of the petitioners under the Act. The learned counsel has further submitted that the impugned transfers will cause grave prejudice to the petitioners. As the orders dated 18.07.2018 are bad and illegal, the consequent impugned notices dated 03.08.2018 are also bad and illegal. To buttress the submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioners has Page No.# 14/33 relied on the decisions in Mul Chand Malu and others vs. Union of India and others, reported in 2016 (2) GLT 756 and Pr. CIT – 1 vs. Atlanta Capital Pvt. Ltd., reported in Manu/DE/3268/2015. 11. The aforesaid contentions and submissions of the petitioners have been vehemently opposed by Mr. Sarma, learned Senior Standing Counsel, appearing for the respondent Income Tax Department. He has submitted that the contentions made in the writ petitions have been adequately traversed by the respondent authorities in their counter affidavits filed in each of the writ petitions. The reasons for which the cases of the petitioners for assessment under the Act are required to be transferred from Dimapur to Kollam have been specifically mentioned in the notices dated 23.05.2018 as well as in the counter affidavits. It is wrong on the part of the petitioners to contend that the principal place of their businesses is in Nagaland. The search and seizure carried out in the places of businesses and residences of the petitioners in Kerala had amply demonstrated that all their finances and economic interests are based in, controlled and managed from Kerala, which have necessitated the transfer of their cases to Kerala. As regards the service of notices dated 23.05.2018 and dated 26.06.2018 are concerned, it is submitted by him that the copies of the first notice dated 23.05.2018 were duly served upon the petitioners on 07.06.2018. When the first notice had been duly served on the petitioners, there is no question of non service of the second notice, which was sent to the same addresses, located in Kerala, where the first notice was served on them. It is further submitted by him that the statements of the petitioners that the second notice dated 26.06.2018 had never been served on them are incorrect statements. The postal articles containing the second notice were returned by the postal authorities with the endorsement ‘unclaimed’, which fact establishes that the petitioners knowingly did not accept the second notice dated 26.06.2018 after having received the first notice sent to them at the same addresses. There was no endorsement of the postal authority to the effect that the address was wrong. Merely because the notices were not served at the registered addresses of the petitioners, it is not open for the petitioners to contend that they were not served with the notices. Refuting the submission that the notice dated 23.05.2018 did not contain the Page No.# 15/33 reason as to why the cases of the petitioners were proposed to be transferred, Mr. Sarma has referred to the contents of the notices dated 23.05.2018. It is further submitted by him that since no objections were forthcoming from the petitioners despite service of the first notice dated 23.05.2018 on them and when more than a month had elapsed since the issuance of the first notice, another opportunity was provided by the respondent No. 1 inviting the petitioners once again to submit their objections, if any, by the second notice by asking them to file their replies by 16.07.2018. Having noticed the fact of non mentioning the time period in the notices dated 23.05.2018 within which the replies were to be filed, the second notice dated 26.06.2018 giving specific time frame was sent, which the petitioners had deliberately avoided, for which the notices dated 26.06.2018 came returned undelivered with the endorsement of the postal authorities as ‘unclaimed’. Though no time period was mentioned in the first notice, the same could not be construed to be indefinite and the same is to be construed that the replies of the petitioners were to be submitted within a reasonable time period. Mr. Sharma, learned Standing Counsel has placed reliance on a decision of the Bombay High Court in Aamby Valley Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in (2014) 221 TAXMAN 0458 and also in the decisions of this Court in Rathi and Company vs. Union of India and others, reported in 2004 (2) GLT 101 and Continental Milkose (India) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and others, reported in (2013) 351 ITR 0292. Alternatively, he has relied on a decision of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Trimurti Fragrances (P) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax & another, reported in (2006) 283 ITR 547 (All) to submit that the time taken from the date of institution till the decision of the present batch of writ petitions be excluded for the purpose of calculating limitation, in case this batch of writ petitions are allowed for one reason or the other. 12. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. I have also perused the materials available on record which include the pleadings of the parties. 13. For the purpose of adjudication of the issue involved in this batch of writ petitions, the pleadings and the documents available in the writ petition, W.P.(C) Page No.# 16/33 No. 33 (K)/2019 are considered treating the same as the leading case of this batch, since issues involved in the other writ petitions are also similar in nature and inter-connected and the learned counsel appearing for the parties have adverted to the pleadings of the said writ petition. The pleadings in all the other writ petitions, the counter affidavits of the respondent Income Tax Department authorities and the affidavits-in-reply to the counter affidavits are also in similar lines. 14. Before proceeding further it is apt to quote the provisions of Section 127 of the Act hereunder:- “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 one or more Assessing Officers subordinate to him (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) to any other Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) also subordinate to him. 2. Where the Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers from whom the case is to be transferred and the Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers to whom the case is to be transferred are not subordinate to the same Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner:- (a) where the Principal Directors General or Directors General or Principal Chief Commissioners or Chief Commissioners or Principal Commissioners or Commissioners to whom such Assessing Officers are subordinate are in agreement, then the Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner from whose jurisdiction the case is to be transferred may, after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter, Page No.# 17/33 wherever it is possible to do so, and after recording his reasons for doing so, pass the order : (b) where the Principal Directors General or Directors General or Principal Chief Commissioners or Chief Commissioners or Principal Commissioners or Commissioners aforesaid are not in agreement, the order transferring the case may, similarly, be passed by the Board or any such Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner as the Board may, by notification in the Official Gazette, authorise in this behalf. 3. Nothing in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be deemed to require any such opportunity to be given where the transfer is from any Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) to any other Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) and the offices of all such officers are situated in the same city, locality or place. 4. The transfer of a case under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) may be made at any stage of the proceedings, and shall not render necessary the re-issue of any notice already issued by the Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers from whom the case is transferred. Explanation: In Section 120 and this section, 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.” 15. It has emerged from the materials on record that a search and seizure operation was carried out by the respondent authorities on 08.06.2017 at various business as well as residential premises of M/s Sreevalsam Group under Section 132 of the Act. From the materials gathered during the said search and seizure operation, it has been found out that the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 33(K)/2019 is Page No.# 18/33 the promoter of M/s Sreevalsam Group and his wife, two sons and a daughter who are the petitioners in the other writ petitions, mentioned hereinabove, are also connected with the affairs of various business entities of M/s Sreevalsam Group. 16. A perusal of Section 127 of the Act shows that the same pertains to power to transfer a case from one jurisdictional Assessing Authority to another jurisdictional Assessing Authority. Where the Assessing Officer (AO) from whom the case is to be transferred and the Assessing Officer (AO) to whom the case is to be transferred are not subordinate to the same Principal Directors General of Income Tax or Director General of Income Tax or Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax or Chief Commissioner of Income Tax or Principal Commissioner of Income Tax or Commissioner of Income Tax, then the provision of Section 127(1) is not attracted and in such cases, the provision of Section 127(2) of the Act becomes applicable. Such a case, in terms of sub-clause (a) of Section 127(2) of the Act, can be transferred from one jurisdiction to another jurisdiction provided there is an agreement between the competent authorities of two jurisdictions before such transfer. As per provisions of Section 127(2)(a) of the Act, an agreement between the Principal Directors General or Directors General or Principal Chief Commissioners or Chief Commissioners or Principal Commissioners or Commissioners, as the case may be, of the two jurisdictions is necessary. It is clear that an agreement between the two jurisdictional authorities is an essential pre-requisite to be complied with to transfer a case between them. In case of absence of such agreement, the provision of clause (b) of Section 127(2) is to be complied with for passing of an order of transfer where the Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers from whom the case is to be transferred and the Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers to whom the case is to be transferred are not subordinate to the same Principal Director or Director General or Principal Chief Commissioners or Chief Commissioners or Principal Commissioners or Commissioners. In the notice dated 07.12.2017, it was recorded that the Director General of Income Tax (Inv), Kochi by his letter dated 04.10.2017 had intimated the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, NER, Guwahati that consequent upon search and seizure operation conducted over M/s Sreevalsam Group of Page No.# 19/33 cases, it has been proposed by the Joint Director of Income Tax (Inv), Trivandrum to centralize the Group cases to the ACIT, Central Circle – Kollam, Kerala for co- ordinated investigation. It was, thereafter, decided by the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, NER, Guwahati by his letter dated 20/24.11.2017 to centralize the Group cases with the ACIT, Central Circle - Kollam, a copy of which was also sent to the addressees with the notice dated 07.12.2017 with the proposal to pass an order under Section 127(2) of the Act to centralize the cases from the ACIT, Circle - Dimapur and/or the ITO, Ward - I, Dimapur, as the case may be, to the ACIT, Central Circle - Kollam, Kerala. It, thus, appears that prior to sending the notice dated 07.12.2017, there was agreement between the Director General of Income Tax (Inv), Kochi and the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, NER, Guwahati belonging to the two jurisdictions. It is neither a pleaded case of the petitioners nor it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there was lack of agreement or there was disagreement between the two respective jurisdictional authorities for the purpose of transferring the cases of the petitioners from Dimapur, Nagaland to Kollam, Kerala. 17. In the order dated 18.07.2018 (Annexure-VI to the writ petition), it has been recorded that the DDIT (Inv), Kollam, Kerala had suggested for centralisation of 21 Group cases with the ACIT, Central Circle - Kollam, Kerala. Out of the 21 cases, 5 cases were assessed with the ACIT, Circle - Dimapur and 3 cases were assessed with ITO, Ward – I, Dimapur. The cases of the Group which were assessed at Dimapur, are as under: Sl .No. Name of assessee PAN Present AD 1. Shri MKK Rajendran Pillai AGJPR7612L ACIT, Circle-Dimapur 2. Smti. Valsala Raj Pillai ACAPR8941B ACIT, Circle-Dimapur 3. Shri Varun Raj Pillai ACAPR8839E ACIT, Circle-Dimapur 4. Shri Arun Raj Pillai AHCPR2712F ITO, Ward-I, Dimapur 5. Kumari Puja Raj BOEPP9295M ITO, Ward-I, Dimapur 6. Sreevalsam Jewellers, Pandalam, Adoor ABGFS9013C ACIT, Circle-Dimapur Page No.# 20/33 7. Smti. Radhamony APWPR9956D ITO, Ward-I, Dimapur 8. Vrindavan Builders Pvt. Ltd. AABCV8155F ITO, Ward-I, Dimapur. Except the assessee at Serial no. 7 in the above table, the other 7 (seven) assessees, shown in the above table, are the petitioners in the present batch of writ petitions. 18. From the above, it has emerged that apart from the 7 (seven) cases which were assessed with the ACIT, Circle – Dimapur and the ITO, Ward – I, Dimapur, there are 14 (fourteen) other cases relating to M/s Sreevalsam Group which are not assessed with the ACIT, Circle – Dimapur or the ITO, Ward – 1, Dimapur. It is not the case of the petitioners that no cases of assessment of M/s Sreevalsam Group are with the ACIT, Central Circle - Kollam, Kerala from an earlier point of time. The petitioners while assailing the impugned orders dated 18.07.2018, are conspicuously silent about the other 14 (fourteen) Group cases, referred to in the impugned order dated 18.07.2018, likely to be clubbed together with the 7 (seven) nos. of cases so transferred. In the notice dated 23.05.2018, the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 33(K)/2019 was informed that he was found to be a Director of M/s Moneymuttahh Nidhi Ltd., which is based in Pathanamthitta district of Kerala, within the jurisdiction of the ACIT, Central Circle - Kollam. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 34(K)/2019, by the notice dated 23.05.2018, was informed that he is the proprietor of M/s Sreevalsam Residency, based in Pathanamthitta district of Kerala. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 35(K)/2019, by the notice dated 23.05.2018, was informed that he is the proprietor of M/s Sreevalsam Textiles, Pandalam, Pathanamthitta district, Kerala. That apart, both these two petitioners are also Directors in M/s Sreevalsam Gold & Diamond Private Ltd., M/s Rajavalsam Motors Private Ltd., M/s Sreevalsam Hotels & Resort Private Ltd. and M/s Moneymuttahh Nidhi Ltd., all based in Pathanamthitta district, Kerala. In the notice dated 23.05.2018, it is recorded that the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 36(K)/2019 is the proprietrix of M/s Rajavalsam Fuels, which runs a fuel outlet at Pandalam, District - Pathanamthitta. She is also found to be a Director in M/s Sreevalsam Gold & Diamonds Private Ltd., M/s Allebasi Builders & Developers Private Ltd. and M/s Vrindavan Builders Private Ltd., which are companies of M/s Sreevalsam Group, promoted by her husband i.e. the petitioner Page No.# 21/33 in W.P.(C) No. 33(K)/2019. The registered office of M/s Sreevalsam Gold & Diamonds Private Ltd. is in Pandalam, District - Pathanamthitta, Kerala whereas the registered office of M/s Allebasi Builders & Developers Private Ltd. is at Attingal, Trivandrum, Kerala. In the notice dated 23.05.2018, sent to the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 39(K)/2019, it is recorded that she is a partner of M/s Sreevalsam Health Care, whose principal office is at Pandalam, District - Pathanamthitta, Kerala. In the notice sent to the Managing Partner, M/s Sreevalsam Jewelers i.e. the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 37(K)/2019, it is recorded that its head office is at Kulanada and the branches are located at Haribbat and Pandalam in Kerala and its entire business interests are found to be in Kerala. In the notice dated 23.05.2018 sent to the Principal Officer of M/s Vrindavan Builders Private Ltd. i.e. the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 38(K)/2019, it is recorded that the sole activity of the company is found to be running of a hotel at Gurubayuar, Kerala and all its business interests are found to be in Kerala. 19. From the above conspectus of facts, it, thus, transpires that it is not a case that all the cases of the petitioners were only assessed with the ACIT, Circle - Dimapur and the ITO, Ward - I, Dimapur with no financial interests and presence in the State of Kerala. It is not a case of the petitioners that there are only 7 (seven) cases of assessment for them and all those were being assessed at Dimapur taking into consideration their financial dealings only in the State of Dimapur and with no connection whatsoever in the State of Kerala. Rather, it goes to show that a substantial part of their financial and business dealings are being carried out in the State of Kerala through various entities. 20. To have a better understanding of the affairs of the various Group entities and their inter-se connections with the present petitioners, it will be apposite to quote the relevant portions of the notice dated 23.05.2018, sent to the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 33(K)/2019, which notice is stated to have been served at his Kerala address, since he is stated to be the promoter of the concerned group :- “In the course of the search operation it was gathered that you joined the Nagaland Police in 1973, retired in 2007, and were retained as Consultant. It is learnt that your consultancy services were terminated in the wake of the search. It was also found that huge funds, running into Page No.# 22/33 several crores of rupees were, at your instance and direction, transferred from some business entities in Nagaland, which are run on paper by Nagaland residents, to various bank accounts of businesses in Kerala which are controlled by your family members. It has been brought out in the search findings that your own and your family members’ financial interests are based, and are controlled and managed, in Kerala state, particularly in Pathanamthitta district. Your family comprises yourself, your wife Smt. Valsala Raj, your sons Shri. Varun Raj and Shri. Arun Raj, and your daughter Ms. Pooja Raj. In the course of the search proceedings, it was found that although your family members were residing in Nagaland earlier, by the year 2006, Smt. Valsala Raj, Shri. Varun Raj, Shri. Arun Raj and Ms. Pooja Raj had relocated to Bangalore. By the year 2010-11, Shri. Varun Raj and Shri. Arun Raj had shifted to Pandalam (your ancestral place) in Pathanamthitta district of Kerala and started businesses in and around that place. Your family members visit Nagaland only occasionally, about once in a year. The search action revealed that you have been transferring huge sums of money to various bank accounts of the businesses in Pathanamthitta district in Kerala where your family members are the stakeholders. Smt. Valsala Raj, Shri. Varun Raj and Shri. Arun Raj are partners in various firms and Directors in various companies of the Sreevalsam group, which are all based in Kerala, particularly in Pathanamthitta District. The various business entities of the Sreevalsam group are listed below with their addresses as furnished to the Income Tax Department. - Sreevalsam Jewellers, Sreevalsam Building, MC Road, Pandalam, Pathanamthitta District, Kerala (partners are Valsala Raj and Varun Raj), - Nenco Gas Service, Mannancherry PO, Alappuzha, Alappuzha District, Kerala (partners are Arun Raj and Rajendra Babu) etc. - Sreevalsam Gold and Diamond Pvt. Ltd, MC Road, Pandalam, Pathanamthitta District, Kerala (Valsala Raj, Arun Raj and Varun Page No.# 23/33 Raj are Directors), - Smart Residency Hotels India Pvt Ltd, MC 488/31, Suncity, Koorkenchery, Thrissur, Kerala (Directors are Arun Raj and Varun Raj), - Rajavalsam Motors Pvt Ltd, Rajavalsam, Panangadu PO, Kulanada, Pathanamthitta District, Kerala (Varun Raj and Arun Raj are Directors), - Sreevalsam Hotels and Resorts Pvt Ltd, Rajavalsam, Panangadu PO, Kulanada, Pathanamthitta District, Kerala (Varun Raj and Arun Raj are Directors), - Moneymuttath Nidhi Ltd, Rajavalsam, Panagad PO, Kulanada, Pathanamthitta District, Kerala (yourself and your sons, Varun Raj and Arun Raj are Directors), - Money Muttam Finance, KP XIII/390/ABCD Vadakottil Buildings, MC Road, Kulanada, Pathanamthitta District, Kerala (Varun Raj and Arun Raj are partners), - Krishna Money Chits Pvt Ltd, Sreevalsam Building, MC Road, Pandalam, Pathanamthitta District, Kerala (Varun Raj and Arun Raj are Directors), - Allebasi Builders & Developers Pvt Ltd, Shelter, Attingal, LMS Junction, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala (Valsala Raj, Arun Raj and G T Rengma are Directors), - Vrindavan Builders Pvt Ltd, c/o M/s Auto Spares, Circular Road, Near Holy Cross, Dimapur, Nagaland (Valsala Raj, Varun Raj, Arun Raj and Tep Rengma are Directors), - Rajavalsam Fuels, a proprietorship of Smt. Valsala Raj, is based in Pandalam, Pathanamthitta district. Over several years, you have been directing the transfer of huge sums of money from several bank accounts in Nagaland to your family’s businesses and to your family members who are all based in Pathnamthitta district of Kerala, making investments in your own name and in the names of your family members in the said businesses and also Page No.# 24/33 in several immovable properties in Kerala and elsewhere. Whenever funds were transferred to third parties, the same was ultimately transferred to an associate or concern in which you or your family members had controlling interest. It is manifest from the modus operandi followed by you that although the source of funds lay in Nagaland, its ultimate destination was in assets in Kerala belonging to you or your family members and to businesses controlled and managed by you or your family members in Kerala. Confronted with the revelation that you had made huge investments in properties and businesses in Kerala you had declared in your statement under section 132(4) that you were admitting additional income of Rs. 100 crore as undisclosed income in the hands of yourself, your family members and the various businesses by the various properties and business interests in Kerala. In the above circumstances, it is clear that your financial interests are centered largely in Pandalam and Kulanada in Pathanamthitta district of Kerala, and the undisclosed investments now admitted by you are also in Kerala. Therefore, it is proposed to transfer the jurisdiction over your case under the Income Tax ACIT, Central Circle, Kollam so as to facilitate assessment of your taxable income.” 21. Having perused the contents of the notices dated 23.05.2018, stated to have been sent by the respondent no. 1 to the petitioners and annexed in this batch of writ petitions, for the purpose of transferring the 7 (seven) cases of the petitioners from the ACIT, Circle - Dimapur and the ITO, Ward – 1, Dimapur in the State of Nagaland to the ACIT, Central Circle - Kollam in the State of Kerala, it is found that adequate reasons were assigned by the respondent no. 1 in the notices for the purpose of enabling the assessee to submit their objections. There appears to be sufficient grounds for the respondent authorities to club the 21 (twenty one) nos. of cases for the purpose of assessment in the State of Kerala as a substantial part of the petitioners’ finances and economic interests are based in, controlled and managed from Kerala, and the same are being carried out through various entities. The petitioners in this batch of cases have only mentioned that they are either ordinarily residents in the State of Nagaland or the Page No.# 25/33 registered offices of the two entities are located in the State of Nagaland. The petitioners have not adverted to the contentions of the respondent authorities, as reflected in the notices dated 23.05.2018, which are annexed by the petitioners themselves with the writ petitions, wherein, the respondent authorities had mentioned about the petitioners’ other businesses and financial and economic interests through their presence in various capacities in the above-mentioned other entities, which are based in, controlled and managed from Kerala for which the respondent authorities deemed it necessary for transferring the 7 (seven) nos. of cases for a co-ordinated investigation and administrative convenience. The respondent authorities are found to have provided adequate reasons in the notices dated 23.05.2018 expressly as to why the cases of the petitioners are required to be transferred to the ACIT, Central Circle - Kollam in the State of Kerala which, in turn, have explained the situation implied as to why the cases of the petitioners should not be considered for assessment in the State of Nagaland. Thus, this Court is of the considered view that the notices dated 23.05.2018 did not suffer from absence of reasons. Rather, the grounds of transfer, indicated in the said notices, are likely to facilitate a co-ordinated investigation and to be convenient for both the sides, contrary to the claims of the petitioners. As already noted above, it is not the case of the petitioners that there are only 7 (seven) cases of assessment only for the Group and all those are assessed only at Dimapur with no case of assessment with the ACIT, Central Circle - Kollam, Kerala. As such, the contention made on behalf of the petitioners on that count is found to be not tenable. 22. The rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties as regards service of notice are taken note of. The contention of the petitioners with regard to the first notice dated 23.05.2018 is that the said notice had arbitrarily and illegally been served to each of them at a ‘wrong’ address in Kerala when such notice should have been served at the petitioners’ addresses in Nagaland where they claim to reside and/or where the registered offices of the entities are located. It is contended that as because the copies of the first notice were served at such ‘wrong’ addresses, the notice escaped the attention of the petitioners. From the above, it is, however, established that the petitioners had received the Page No.# 26/33 copies of the first notice but, according to them, the same were served at addresses which are ‘wrong’. The petitioners have not disclosed as to when the copies of the first notice were served and received by them. The impugned order dated 18.07.2018 has recorded, by referring to one such notice, that the notice dated 23.05.2018, sent by speed post vide no. ES810641062IN, was served on the addressee-petitioners on 07.06.2018 at the Kerala address, asking the petitioner therein to submit objection against the proposal to transfer the case. In the affidavits-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 and 3 in the writ petitions, it has been similarly averred that the copies of the first notice were served on the petitioners at their addresses in Kerala on 07.06.2018. The said averments regarding service of the first notice on them have not been denied by the petitioners. But a plea has been raised by the petitioners that the first notice escaped their attention which resulted into denial of reasonable opportunity to respond to the said notice, more particularly, for the fact that the first notice did not stipulate any time period within which the objections to the proposal of transfer were to be filed. At the same time, the petitioners have averred in the writ petition that they having received the notice at a much belated stage, were thinking of filing replies to the same and had sent the same to their attorney on record, but by that time, the impugned orders dated 18.07.2018 were served on them. But the petitioners are again conspicuously silent as to when the copies of the first notice were served on them and have not stated anything in rebuttal to the claim of the sender. To raise a credible plea of not being afforded reasonable opportunity to them to respond to the said notice, it entails a disclosure on the part of the petitioners as regards the date of receipt of the said notice by them. But no such disclosure has been made by the petitioners. No statutory provision has been brought to the notice of this Court by the petitioners to buttress their contention to the effect that a time period is to be stipulated in such notice itself for submission of reply by the assessee to the proposal of transfer. The time period between the date of first notice i.e. 23.05.2018 and the date of passing of the impugned order dated 18.07.2018 is 56 days whereas the time period between the date of service of the first notice i.e. 07.06.2018, claimed by the respondent no.1, and the date of passing of the impugned order dated Page No.# 27/33 18.07.2018 is 41 days, which are reasonable time period for one to respond to such a notice. Grant of reasonable time period is also one of the facets of affording reasonable opportunity of being heard. But considering the time periods, indicated above, it cannot be said that the respondent authorities had fallen short of on that count in adhering to the principles of natural justice. 23. In the first round of litigation, the petitioners had assailed the impugned action of transfer of their cases on the grounds that no reason was assigned by the respondent authorities in the notices, all dated 07.12.2017, containing the proposal to transfer and the same had resulted in denial of reasonable opportunity to them to file effective responses objecting to the said proposal to transfer. From the copies of the said notices dated 07.12.2017, annexed to the writ petitions and out of which the contents of one are extracted above, it is noticed that those notices were sent to two addresses of the petitioners, one in Nagaland and the other in Kerala. The contents of the notice dated 23.05.2018, reproduced above, are indicative of the situation for which the respondent no. 1 despatched the earlier notices to the petitioners to the addresses in Kerala and in Nagaland. In this batch of writ petitions, the petitioners have averred to the effect that they were served with a show cause notice dated 23.05.2018, but not at their registered addresses wherein the show cause notices were ‘issued’ in the earlier round of litigation, but at one place in Kerala for reasons best known. In the earlier round of litigation, no such plea, as could be gathered from the common judgment and order dated 03.04.2018, that their addresses in Kerala, at which the notices dated 07.12.2017 were issued, were wrong. In the above fact situation obtaining in the present case, as has been discussed above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the plea of improper service of notice is not tenable as the address to which the notice dated 23.05.2018 was sent is not a wrong address because it was sent to that very address in Kerala where one copy of the notice dated 07.12.2017 was sent. Thus, it cannot be said that said facet of the principles of natural justice was violated by the respondent authorities for denial of reasonable opportunity to the petitioners to respond to the said notice under reference. 24. It is noted that the second notice dated 26.06.2018 was also sent to each Page No.# 28/33 of the individual petitioners at their addresses in Kerala, where the first notice dated 23.05.2018 was sent. In terms of the observations made in respect of the first notice, it cannot be the case of the petitioners that the notice dated 26.06.2018 was sent to addresses which are not the petitioners’ addresses. It is one thing to say that the address to which a postal article is sent is not his address at all and it is another thing to say that the address to which a postal article is sent though a correct address, but is an address wherein he does not normally reside. The first is a case of wrong address but the second is not a case of wrong address. The plea that the assessees do not reside in those addresses is not to be accepted in this batch of writ petitions for the reasons already discussed in the preceding paragraphs and the view taken in respect of service of the first notice dated 23.05.2018. In this connection, it is profitable to refer to the presumption available in Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. As per the presumption under Section 27, when it is found that a notice has been sent by post to the correct address of the noticee, it is deemed to have been served or that the noticee is deemed to have a knowledge of the notice. Even in case such a notice returns unserved, it is deemed to have been served or that the noticee is deemed to have knowledge of the notice. It is pertinent to note that in the cases in hand, the postal authority had returned the postal articles, with the endorsement, ‘unclaimed’ and not with any remark that the addresses were wrong. To displace such presumption as regards service of notice, nothing has been said on behalf of the petitioners except the bald statement that the second notice had never been served on them, which is not sufficient to discharge the onus placed on them. Situated thus, it is not open for the petitioners to claim that they did not receive the second notice dated 26.06.2018 wherein the period by which they were asked to submit the replies was mentioned, more so, when they were well aware of the fact that liberty was granted to the respondent authorities by this Court in the common judgment and order dated 03.04.2018 to proceed from the stage of notice by assigning reason and they had received the first notice dated 23.05.2018. The words “wherever it is possible to do so” appearing in Section 127(2)(a) of the Act cannot be said to be of no significance as it gives an option to the concerned authority mentioned therein i.e. the Principal Director Page No.# 29/33 General or Director General or Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner from whose jurisdiction the case is to be transferred to serve a notice containing a proposal to transfer in order to provide an assessee the reasonable opportunity of being heard before passing an order of transfer, at an address where the assessee is, in all possibility, likely to be served upon. As has been found above from the contents of the first notice dated 23.05.2018, the respondent no. 1 had, in the instant cases, despatched the notices to addresses where the petitioners-assessees were, in all possibility, likely to be served upon and thus, the submission of the petitioners that the addresses were wrong cannot be countenanced. In the aforesaid backdrop, the shelter sought to be taken by the petitioners under the procedural requirement, as referred to in Rule 127 of the Income Tax Rules, is not found to be of any assistance to the petitioners in the face of substantial compliance of the requirements of providing the reasonable opportunity of being heard. The cases of the present petitioners, contrary to projections, are not denial of reasonable opportunity of being heard, but of not availing the reasonable opportunity after they were afforded the reasonable opportunity of being heard. 25. In Aamby Valley Ltd. (supra), order assailed was passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai, whereby, the case of the petitioner no. 1 therein was transferred from the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT), Mumbai to the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT), Central Circle (6), New Delhi for the purpose of a co-ordinated investigation and assessment of the petitioner. The order was passed on the grounds that the case belonging to the group were centralized with the DCIT, Central Circle (6), New Delhi and that the assessee had large scale financial transactions with the said group. It has been held that the power to transfer cases under Section 127 of the Act is to be exercised after following the principles of natural justice. It has been further held that the discretion of the authority to transfer a case has to be examined on the touchstone of the same not being arbitrary and/or perverse and/or malafide. If there are reasons in the impugned order which indicates due application of mind to reach a view to transfer a case from one jurisdiction to another then a High Court will not interfere with the discretion of the administrative authority to Page No.# 30/33 transfer the case. This discretion is vested by the Act in high ranking officials and the necessity to transfer a case from the jurisdiction of one Assessing Officer to another Assessing Officer for better administration of the Act could be diverse and impossible to enumerate. It is for the above reason that Section 127 of the Act has not limited the exercise of jurisdiction by specifying any circumstances before the authority can exercise his powers to transfer the case. It has been held an assessee cannot choose his Assessing Officer and, therefore, if the transfer order indicates some valid reasons to justify the transfer and such reasons are neither perverse or arbitrary or mala fide a High Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, would not interfere with the reasonable exercise of such discretion. 26. In Continental Milkose (India) Ltd. (supra), the writ petition was filed seeking quashing of an order dated 20.12.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Dibrugarh under Section 127(2)(a) of the Act transferring the case of assessment of the petitioner from Dibrugarh to New Delhi for effective co- ordinated investigation and administrative convenience. The impugned order reflected that a search and seizure operation was carried out against the petitioner group on 09.03.2012 at New Delhi and, thereafter, show cause notice dated 30.08.2012 was issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Dibrugarh requiring the Managing Director of the petitioner company to respond, thus, providing an opportunity to show cause against the proposed transfer of assessment cases to New Delhi. The petitioner company submitted its reply stating that all the Directors of the Company were residing at Dibrugarh and the whole group was being assessed at Dibrugarh since inception and it would entail huge expenditure and difficulties to attend the proceedings at New Delhi. After consideration of the said reply, the impugned order was passed, wherein, it was observed that the company had registered office at New Delhi with business activities in Noida. The Directors of the Company were living at New Delhi for quite a long time. It was stated that specific evidence had been gathered regarding tax evasion by the group at New Delhi. Further inquiries were required to be conducted at New Delhi and to some extent in North-East. It was observed that since major business activities were in and around Delhi and the control was Page No.# 31/33 also in Delhi, the cases were required to be centralized at Delhi for effective co- ordinated investigation and administrative convenience. The impugned order was assailed on the ground that the same was ultra-virus Section 127(2)(a) of the Act as there was disagreement between the two jurisdictional authorities for such transfer. Upon due consideration, a Division Bench of this Court did not interfere with the impugned order finding that there was no disagreement. It was observed that there was no allegation of personal mala fides. This Court noted that though the head office of the petitioner company was in Dibrugarh where it was previously assessed, the registered office of the Company and business activities of the group were mostly around New Delhi. After perusal of the materials on record, it was found that the opinion formed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Dibrugarh was not in any manner vitiated as there were materials to show that there was search and seizure at Delhi and there was allegation of tax evasion at Delhi which was being investigated at Delhi. The facts recorded in the impugned orders dated 18.07.2018 in this present batch of writ petitioners are in similar lines like Continental Milkrose (India) Ltd.(supra). 27. In Rathi and Company (supra), the challenge was to an order passed by the CIT, Guwahati-II, Guwahati transferring the income tax and wealth tax cases of the petitioner therein from the jurisdiction of the AOs at Guwahati to the AO in Calcutta. A prior notice was issued to the assessee before the cases were transferred and the petitioner therein submitted their objections without any reservation and did not ask for any further material. In view of the same, the challenge to the transfer order on the ground of absence of reason in the show cause notice was negated by this Court. In the present batch of cases, the notice dated 23.05.2018 did not suffer from absence of reason. 28. The subject-matter in Mul Chand Malu (supra) was transfer of the cases of the assessee from Guwahati to the jurisdictional ITO in New Delhi by the Income Tax Authorities invoking Section 127(2) of the Act. After surveying a number of decisions and also interpreting the provisions of Section 127(2) of the Act, a Division Bench of this Court had observed that a show cause notice must convey the reasons for the proposed transfer of the case so that the assessee could make effective representation with reference to the reasons set out in the notice. Page No.# 32/33 A notice, issued under Section 127 of the Act, must prima facie show due application of mind and reasons must also be disclosed so that an effective opportunity is provided to the affected party to respond to the notice. The contemplated hearing in such matter to the assessee must be effective and not a mere formality. After noticing the content of the show cause notice therein, the Division Bench had observed that bare omnibus statement that the transfer is intended for the purpose of centralization of cases would not be enough since all the cases could be centralized under an officer based in Guwahati and transfer of jurisdiction to an officer at New Delhi would not be justified. The ground of transfer must have nexus towards administrative convenience and co-ordinated investigation. As there was no reflection of these twin reasons in the notice and the reason as to why all the cases could not be clubbed under one ITO at Guwahati, the impugned orders of transfer of cases of the petitioner under Section 127 (2) of the Act impugned orders were quashed. The decision in Mul Chand Malu (supra) is not applicable to the facts and circumstances in the present batch of writ petitions, as all required parameters as discussed in Mul Chand Malu (supra) were followed. 29. In Atlanta Capital Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the subject-matter before the Delhi High Court was an appeal under Section 260A(1) of the Act against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) and the question that arose was whether the notice to the assessee under Section 148 of the Act was duly issued and served in accordance with law. It was held that the onus was on the revenue to show that the proper service of notice had been affected under Section 148 of the Act on the assessee. It was found that the notice dated 27.03.2008 was issued to the assessee by the Assessing Officer (AO) at an address at B-231, Okla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi. Admittedly, the assessee had shifted from that address w.e.f. 01.02.2005 to a new address at B-115, Sarvodaya Enclave, New Delhi. For AY 2005-2006 and the subsequent AYs, the assessee disclosed his new address and even the AO had sent letters to the assessee at the new address on 08.08.2007 and 25.01.2008 for AY 2006-2007. It was in such fact situation, the Court held that there was no proper service of notice on the assessee under Section 148 of the Act. Noticeably, the notice involved therein, Page No.# 33/33 sent by speed post, did not return unserved which is not the case in this batch of writ petitions. It is settled proposition that the ratio of any decision must be understood in the background of the facts of the case and that a case is only an authority for what it actually decides, and not what logically follows from it. The said decision is found to be not applicable to the present batch of writ petitions. 30. In the light of the discussions and observations made above and upon consideration of the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that there was no denial of affording reasonable opportunity of being heard in the cases of the petitioners. By assigning adequate reasons therein, the petitioners were given adequate opportunities to respond to the two notices containing the proposal to transfer their cases of assessment from the ACIT, Circle – Dimapur or the ITO, Ward – I, Dimapur, as the case may be, in the State of Nagaland to the ACIT, Central Circle – Kollam in the State of Kerala before passing of the impugned orders dated 18.07.2018. But by not responding to the said notices, the petitioners did not avail the opportunity so granted to them by submitting their responses and, as such, the plea of denial of the principles of natural justice is found to be not tenable and sustainable. In such view of the matter, this Court does not find any good and sufficient reason to interfere with the impugned orders dated 18.07.2018 passed in exercise of the powers under Section 127(2)(a) of the Act and the consequent notice issued under Section 153A of the Act. As a result, these writ petitions are found to be bereft of merit and, accordingly, the same are dismissed. The interim order passed earlier, stands recalled. There is, however, no order as to cost. Sd/- JUDGE Comparing Assistant "