POOJA RAJ PILLAI V. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JORHAT AND 4 ORS

WA/41/2020

AI Insights

The case involves a series of writ appeals filed by Sri M.K. Rajendran Pillai and his family members against the transfer of their income tax assessment jurisdiction from Dimapur, Nagaland to Kollam, Kerala. The transfer was initiated by the Revenue authorities under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, following a search and seizure operation that revealed significant financial activities linked to the family in Kerala. The appellants contested the transfer, arguing that it was done without proper notice and reasons, and was thus in violation of the Act. The High Court's decision affirmed the transfer, emphasizing the administrative necessity and the proper procedural compliance by the Revenue authorities.

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 747660 (HC-MISC)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 29-10-2021
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: K.P. Mohammed Salim vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Cochin
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: S SARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: A TODI; PS CHAKRABORTY
• Keywords: Assessment; Case transfer; Income Tax; Notice; Search and seizure
• Section: 132; 282; 127

Judgement Text

"GAHC010049512020 [[[[ THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) WRIT APPEAL No. 39 of 2020 SRI VARUN RAJ PILLAI, Son of Sri M.K. Rajendran Pillai, C/o- Auto Spares, Circular Road, Dimapur, Nagaland. ……APPELLANT -versus- 1. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, Jorhat, Aaykar Bhawan, 1st Floor, Thana Road, Jorhat - 785001, Assam. 2. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON, Under the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) Govt. of India, North Block, New Delhi – 110001. 3. DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, Dimapur, Purana Bazar Kalibari Road, Dimapur – 797112, Nagaland. 4. DEPUTY / ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, Central Circle – Kollam, Kerala. 5. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi – 110011. ……RESPONDENTS WRIT APPEAL No. 40 of 2020 SMT. VALSALA RAJ PILLAI, W/o of Sri M.K. Rajendran Pillai, C/o- Auto Spares, Circular Road, Dimapur, Nagaland. ……APPELLANT -versus- 1. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, Jorhat, Aaykar Bhawan, 1st Floor, Thana Road, Jorhat - 785001, Assam. 2. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON, Under the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) Govt. of India, North Block, New Delhi – 110001. 3. DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, Dimapur, Purana Bazar Kalibari Road, Dimapur - 797112 Nagaland. 4. DEPUTY / ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, Central Circle – Kollam, Kerala. 5. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi – 110011. ……RESPONDENTS WRIT APPEAL No. 41 of 2020 SMT. POOJA RAJ PILLAI, D/o Sri M.K. Rajendran Pillai, C/o- Auto Spares, Circular Road, Dimapur, Nagaland. ……APPELLANT -versus- 1. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, Jorhat, Aaykar Bhawan, 1st Floor, Thana Road, Jorhat - 785001, Assam. 2. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON, Under the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) Govt. of India, North Block, New Delhi – 110001. 3. DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, Dimapur, Purana Bazar Kalibari Road, Dimapur – 797112, Nagaland. 4. DEPUTY / ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, Central Circle – Kollam, Kerala. 5. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi – 110011. ……RESPONDENTS WRIT APPEAL No. 44 of 2020 SRI ARUN RAJ PILLAI Son of Sri M.K. Rajendran Pillai, C/o- Auto Spares, Circular Road, Dimapur, Nagaland. ……APPELLANT -versus- 1. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, Jorhat, Aaykar Bhawan, 1st Floor, Thana Road, Jorhat - 785001, Assam. 2. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON, Under the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) Govt. of India, North Block, New Delhi – 110001. 3. DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, Dimapur, Purana Bazar Kalibari Road, Dimapur – 797112,Nagaland. 4. DEPUTY / ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, Central Circle – Kollam, Kerela. 5. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi - 11001 ……RESPONDENTS WRIT APPEAL No. 45 of 2020 SRI M. K. RAJENDRAN PILLAI, Son of Late N. Krishna Pillai, C/o- Auto Spares, Circular Road, Dimapur, Nagaland. ……APPELLANT -versus- 1. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, Jorhat, Aaykar Bhawan, 1st Floor, Thana Road, Jorhat - 785001, Assam. 2. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON, Under the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) Govt. of India, North Block,New Delhi – 110001. 3. DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, Dimapur, Purana Bazar Kalibari Road, Dimapur – 797112, Nagaland. 4. DEPUTY / ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, Central Circle – Kollam, Kerela. 5. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi - 11001 ……RESPONDENTS – BEFORE – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SUDHANSHU DHULIA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KAKHETO SEMA For the appellant : Dr. A Todi, Ms. PS Chakraborty, Advocates For the respondent Nos.1 to 4: Mr. S Sarma, Standing Counsel, Income Tax Department Date of hearing and : 29.10.2021 Judgment & order JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL) (Sudhanshu Dhulia, CJ) Heard Dr. Ankit Todi and Ms. PS Chakraborty, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S Sarma, learned senior Standing Counsel, Income Tax, appearing for the respondents. 2. All these writ appeals have been filed by the writ appellants/petitioners against a common judgment and order dated 25.09.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in a batch of writ petitions, viz. WP(C) 33(K)/2019, WP(C) 34(K)/2019, WP(C) 35(K)/2019, WP(C) 36(K)/2019, WP(C) 37(K)/2019, WP(C) 38(K)/2019 and WP(C) 39(K)/2019. In these writ petitions 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, who is the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 36(K)/2019. All the petitioners are the members of one family. 3. Presently, we have before us five writ appeals, arsing out of the order dated 25.09.2019, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) 33(K)/2019, WP(C) 34(K)/2019, WP(C) 35(K)/2019, WP(C) 36(K)/2019, WP(C) 37(K)/2019, WP(C) 38(K)/2019 and WP(C) 39(K)/2019. 4. Sri M.K. Rajendran Pillai is the promoter of M/s Sreevalsam Group. Sri Arun Raj Pillai is the appellant in WA 44/2020 and Sri Varun Raj Pillai is the appellant in WA 39/2020. W.P.(C) No. 36 (K)/2019 was filed by Smti. Valsala Raj Pillai, who is the wife of Sri M.K. Rajendran Pillai and the appellant in WA 40/2020. WA 41/2020 has been filed by Smti. Pooja Raj Pillai, i.e. the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 39 (K)/2019, who is the daughter of Sri M.K. Rajendran Pillai. Since the subject matter involved in all these appeals is common, it is being decided by this common order. All the same, for the sake of convenience the facts we would refer to pertains to WP(C) 33(K)/2019, which is now WA No. 45/2020, which is the writ petition and writ appeal respectively filed by Sri M.K. Rajendran Pillai. 5. The case of the petitioner/assessee before the learned Single Judge was that he has business interest in Kollam, Kerala as well as in Dimapur, Nagaland, but most of the time he resides in Dimapur, Nagaland. The Revenue, in exercise of its power under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in order to centralise the process for assessment, has transferred the case from Dimapur, Nagaland to Kollam, Kerala vide the impugned order dated 18.07.2018. It was alleged by the petitioner that this has been done without proper notice to the assessee/petitioner assigning any reasons as to why such transfer was being made and it is in violation of Section 127 of the Act. Further, since the notice itself was not served upon the petitioner as was liable to have been done under the provisions contained in the Income Tax Act and the rules framed therein, it is also violative of Section 282 of the Act as well as Rule 127 of the Income Tax Rules, it was alleged. 6. The brief facts of the case, however, are that in terms of Section 132 of the Act, search and seizure was conducted by the Revenue on 08.06.2017 at various business as well as residential premises of the petitioner in Kerala. The petitioner/writ appellant is the promoter of a group, which we shall for the sake of convenience mention here as “M/s Sreevalsam Group”. It was in this search and seizure operation that it was discovered that Sri M.K. Rajendran Pillai [petitioner in WP(C) 33(K)/2019] is the promoter of M/s Sreevalsam group and his wife, Smti Valsala Raj Pillai, their two sons and a daughter, who were all the petitioners before the learned Single Judge (and are the writ appellants before this Court in their respective writ appeals), are also connected with various affairs of various business entities of M/s Sreevalsam Group. Subsequent to the search and seizure followed the assessment/re-assessment of the income of previous years, since the business interest of this particular group was located in Kerala as well as in Nagaland and purely for administrative exigencies and in order to have a better control, powers under Section 127 of the Act were exercised by the Revenue authorities. Section 127 of the Act gives power to transfer a case from one jurisdictional assessing authority to another. Section 127 of the Act reads as under: “127. Power to transfer cases. – (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, 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.” 7. A notice under Section 127 was given to the petitioners/writ appellants on 07.12.2017 by the Revenue authorities situated in Jorhat, Assam. The writ appellants/ petitioners raised objections to the said proposed transfer on 25.01.2018 and ultimately the Revenue authority vide order dated 27.02.2018 passed an order transferring the case of the petitioner from one assessing authority to another, i.e. from Dimapur, Nagaland to Kollam, Kerala. This order was put to challenge in WP(C) No.42(K) of 2018 and other connected writ petitions by all the assessees/petitioners including the present petitioners, who are all family members, before the learned Single Judge at Kohima Bench of Gauhati High Court. The main argument of the petitioners before the learned Single Judge was that the two necessary ingredients of Section 127 of the Act are: firstly, a proper notice has to be given to an assessee before actually passing the transfer order and secondly, such an order must assign reasons for the transfer. Since no reason has been assigned either in the notice or in the order, the order is bad and is liable to be set aside. This plea of the assessee/petitioner found favour with the learned Single Judge and the writ petitions were allowed vide common order dated 03.04.2018 whereby opportunity was given to the Revenue department to proceed afresh against the assessee/petitioner by giving a fresh notice under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act. The relevant portion of the said order dated 03.04.2018 reads as under: “12. The above being said, the respondents are given the liberty to issue fresh Notices to the petitioners under Section 127 of the Income Tax, 1961, if they are still proposing to centralize the petitioners case to ACIT, Central Circle - Kollam. However, the respondents should give reasons for the said proposal for transfer of the cases of the petitioners, with regard to why the centralization should be done to the ACIT, Central Circle - Kollam.” 8. The factual position as of now is that by the time the order was passed by the learned Single Judge, the records already stood transferred from Dimapur to Kollam. Therefore, a fresh notice was given to the petitioner under Section 127 of the Act on 23.05.2018 which, according to the petitioner, was never received by him since the notice was given at their Kollam address in Kerala, where they normally do not reside. Ultimately, the transfer order was passed on 18.07.2018 which was again put to challenge by the petitioner before the learned Single Judge primarily on two grounds: firstly, the service of the notice was bad and in fact it was no service in the eyes of law. Reliance was placed on Section 2821 of the Act read with Rule 1 Section 282. (1) The service of a notice or summon or requisition or order or any other communication under this Act (hereafter in this section referred to as ‘communication’) may be made by delivering or transmitting a copy thereof, to the person therein named,— (a) by post or by such courier services as may be approved by the Board; or 127 of the Income Tax Rules. Moreover, no reason was assigned in the transfer order dated 18.07.2018 as to why it is being centralized at Kollam and why it cannot be done at Dimapur itself. Both these arguments did not find favour with the learned Single Judge and in our opinion rightly so. As far as service of notice is concerned, reliance has been placed on Rule 1272, where one of the addresses on which notice can be given is the registered office of the company where the registered company is situated. It has come from the records that there are many companies registered in Kerala where the petitioners are shown as ‘Directors’ of the company. Many of petitioners, viz. Smti. Valsala Raj Pillai, Smti. Pooja Raj Pillai, Sri Arun Raj Pillai and Sri M.K. Rajendran Pillai are connected with the (b) in such manner as provided under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) for the purposes of service of summons; or (c) in the form of any electronic record as provided in Chapter IV of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000); or (d) by any other means of transmission of documents as provided by rules made by the Board in this behalf. (2) The Board may make rules providing for the addresses (including the address for electronic mail or electronic mail message) to which the communication referred to in sub-section (1) may be delivered or transmitted to the person therein named. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, the expressions ‘electronic mail’ and ‘electronic mail message’ shall have the meanings as assigned to them in Explanation to section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000). 2 Rule 127. (1) For the purposes of sub-section (1) of section 282, the addresses (including the address for electronic mail or electronic mail message) to which a notice or summons or requisition or order or any other communication under the Act (hereafter in this rule referred to as ‘communication’) may be delivered or transmitted shall be as per sub-rule (2). (2) The addresses referred to in sub-rule (1) shall be— (a) for communications delivered or transmitted in the manner provided in clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 282— (i) the address available in the PAN database of the addressee; or (ii) the address available in the income-tax return to which the communication relates; or (iii) the address available in the last income-tax return furnished by the addressee; or (iv) in the case of addressee being a company, address of registered office as available on the website of Ministry of Corporate Affairs: Provided that the communication shall not be delivered or transmitted to the address mentioned in item (i) to (iv) where the addressee furnishes in writing any other address for the purposes of communication to the income-tax authority or any person authorised by such authority issuing the communication. company which has registered office at Kerala, where notice dated 23.05.2018 was served. In fact, when nobody made representation before the concerned authority which has passed the transfer order, another notice was sent which was returned with a remark “Addressee unclaimed - return to sender”. In fact, the reasons which have been assigned for transfer of the case are very relevant. The reasons are contained in the notice dated 23.05.2018 itself which reads as under: “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 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 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 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.” 9. The reasons for transferring the case from Nagaland to Kerala have been given in the notice dated 23.05.2018 which have been referred above and which assign credible reasons. The very purpose of the powers, which have been given to the authorities under Section 127 of the Act, are the powers to be exercised in public interest. It has a larger public purpose as observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of K.P. Mohammed Salim vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Cochin, reported in (2008) 11 SCC 573. The purpose of transferring the case is to facilitate the Revenue authorities in doing an effective and coordinate investigation and assessment. We have absolutely no doubt in our mind that the reasons were assigned by the authorities as it was required under Section 127 of the Act. 10. As far as service of the notice is concerned, this matter has also been examined in great detail by the learned Single Judge in the order dated 25.09.2019 where it has been held that two notices were sent on 23.05.2018 and 26.06.2018 respectively. It is an admitted case that the first notice was served at their address at Kerala. The plea that they do not reside at this address frequently has been negated by the Revenue as the case of the Revenue authorities is that they primarily stay in Kerala and only occasionally go to Nagaland only once in a year. Their entire business interest is in Kerala. In fact, it is not a case where notice was sent at a wrong address. The notice was sent at an address of the company at Kerala which has also been received by the appellants/petitioners although they do not categorically refute that they did not receive the said notice. It is therefore sufficient compliance under Rule 127 as the notice was sent at the registered office of the company. The Revenue department has categorically stated that the appellants/petitioners had received the notice dated 23.05.2018 on 26.06.2018, a fact which has been reiterated over and again by the Revenue department, and has not been negated by the appellants/ petitioners. All the same, since no response was filed before the Revenue authorities, another notice was sent on 26.06.2018. Unlike the first time, this time it came with an endorsement of the postal authority that it is “unclaimed”. A presumption can very well be drawn here that when the first notice was received at the same address, how can the second notice remain “unclaimed” and therefore, this plea of the petitioners/appellants that the second notice was never received by them has been rightly rejected by the learned Single Judge. 11. As no objection was filed under the proceeding under Section 127 of the Act, the Revenue had no alternative but to pass the order which was ultimately done on 18.07.2018. As far as merits of the order dated 18.07.2018 is concerned, we are of the considered view that such a transfer has to be made on administration exigencies and for better assessment by the Revenue department. The Revenue authorities are the best judge in this matter and they have assigned clear and cogent reasons as to why the transfer is being made. The only requirement of the law is that while passing an order of transfer, the reasons must be assigned. We have absolutely no doubt in our mind that cogent reasons have been assigned by the Revenue for transferring the case from Dimapur to Kollam and therefore, it does not call for our interference. We find absolutely no reason to interfere with the finding of the learned Single Judge. The writ appeals are devoid of merit and the same are accordingly dismissed. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant "