Legality and validity of transferring the file of the assessee under section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is the subject matter of both the writ petitions. 2. The material facts leading to the filing of both cases are given below. The petitioners are assessees under the Income Tax Act who were served with notice dated 13.5.92 proposing the transfer of the petitioners' case from the jurisdiction of the Income Tax Officer, Tinsukia (Ward I) to the respondent No. 1 under section 127 of the Income Tax Act (for short the Act). The petitioners submitted their reply indicating about inconvenience that would ensue on such transfer. According to the petitioners, neither sanction thereafter was taken by the respondents, nor the respondents responded to the show case reply of the petitioners. Subsequently, the Assistant Commissioner, the respondent No. 1 issued notices on the petitioners from time to time under section 142 of the Act for submitting their return and production of accounts. The very assumption of jurisdiction of the respondent No. 1 is, therefore, assailed in these petitions. The respondents filed their affidavit-in-opposition and submitted that in exercise of power under section 120 of the Act the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (investigation Circle), Dibrugarhhad been vested with the power and jurisdiction over all 'search and seizure' cases of Dibrugarh District of the State of Assam, the districts of Lohit, Tirap, East Siang, West Siang and Dibong Valley of Arunachla Pradesh. The case of the petitioner, as being a case of search and seizure, the jurisdiction over such cases automatically vested on Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Investigation Circle) with effect from 8.4.1992 vide notification No.2 of 1992-93 dated 8.4.92. On the strength of notification aforementioned, the respondent No. 1 assumed jurisdiction on the subject matter, Consequently the Income Tax Officer (Ward I), Tinsukia ceased to exercise jurisdiction since 8.4.92. Accordingly, the returns submitted by the petitioners assessees were transferred to the respondent No. 1. As regards the notice bearing No.E-l8/90-9l/TSK/B&S/PtII dated 13.3.92 the respondents stated that the said notice was initially issued accepting the case of the petitioner for transfer to the jurisdiction of respondent No. 1, but subsequently when it was discovered that the case was already covered by the notification dated 8.4.92. no further order was thereafter passed under section 127 of the Act. no further order was thereafter passed under section 127 of the Act. The respondents also asserted that in view of the aforesaid notification dated 8.4.92 there was no necessity for issuance of individual notices to each and every person of the category those who came under search and seizure. According to the respondents the cases were lawfully transferred to the Assistant Commissioner in question and therefore, there was no illegality in assumption of jurisdiction. 3. Dr. A K Saraf, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner firstly submitted that the respondent No. 1 exceeded his jurisdiction in assuming jurisdiction over the matter which was not lawfully conferred with. Dr. Saraf in course of his argument pointed out that the same Commissioner of Income Tax in exercise of his power under section 127 of the Act initiated process for transfer and accordingly notices were issued upon the petitioners to which the petitioners responded by submitting their show cause reply. The power under section 127 of the Act is distinct from that of section 120 and therefore, the action of the respondent No. 1 is seemingly arbitrary. Dr. Saraf further submitted that assuming the notification dated 8.4.92 under section 120 of the Act is valid, an exercise of power, in that event, the notification would be operative from 1.5.92 and the said notification would cover the search and seizure cases of the Dibrugarh and Tinsukia Districts in the State of Assam and Tirap, Lohit, East Siang, West Siang and Dibong Valley of the State of Arunachla Pradesh which took place after 1.5.92. Learned counsel further submitted that the notification under section 120 of the Act under no circumstances can cover the petitioners in whose cases search and seizure took place on 29.5.92. In support of his contention, learned counsel refers of a decision of the Supreme Court in Ajanta Industries & others vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes & others, reported in 102 ITR 281. Dr. Saraf also referes to a decision of the Supreme Court in Taja Textile vs. IT Commissioner, reported in 87 ITR 539. 4. Mr. GK Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue on the other hand, submitted that the impugned notice dated 8.4.92 was lawfully issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax and by virtue of the said notification all the cases as set down therein stood transferred, including the case of the petitioners. 4. Mr. GK Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue on the other hand, submitted that the impugned notice dated 8.4.92 was lawfully issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax and by virtue of the said notification all the cases as set down therein stood transferred, including the case of the petitioners. The notices issued under section 127 of the Act by the Commissioner can no way affect the statutory force of the notification dated 8.4.92 which was issued in exercise of power under section 120 of the Act. Learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue has further submitted that if a power is lawfully exercised within the parameter of the statute, a wrong reference to the power cannot invalidiate an action. 5. Mr. Joshi lastly submitted that as it is a case of exercise of discretion by the statutory authority in the fact situation, unless the said exercise of discretion can be said to be without authority of law or otherwise, the same cannot be held to be arbitrary and unreasonable, this Court will undoubtedly be slow in such matters in exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the Revenue also submitted that in the instant case not completing the process initiated under section 127 of the Act, did not in any way caused any prejudice to the petitioners, requiring interference from this Court. 6. Chapter XIII of the Income Tax Act relates to the Appointment and Control of Income Tax authorities, jurisdiction, respective powers of officers and disclosure of information of respective assessees. Section 116 to 119 contains the provisions relating to Income Tax authorities and section 120 to 129 of the Act relates to provisions of jurisdiction. Relevant provisions of section 120 and 127 of the Act are quoted below: "120. Jurisdiction and Directors of Inspection : Directors of Inspection shall perform such functions of any other Income Tax authority as maybe assigned to them by the Board. 127. Relevant provisions of section 120 and 127 of the Act are quoted below: "120. Jurisdiction and Directors of Inspection : Directors of Inspection shall perform such functions of any other Income Tax authority as maybe assigned to them by the Board. 127. Power to transfer case : (1) The Commissioner, may after giving the assessee a reasonble 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 of the following officers subordinate to him, namely - (a) Any Income Tax Officer or Income Tax Officers; (b) Any Income Tax Officer or Income Tax Officers having concurrent jurisdiction with the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, to any other - (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction with the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner) also subordinate to him and the Board may similarly transfer any case from - (i) Any Income Tax Officer or Income Tax Officers; (ii) Any Income Tax Officer or Income Tax Officers having concurrent jurisdiction with the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, to any other Income Tax Officer or Income Tax Officers (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction with the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner); Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall be deemed to require any such opportunity to be given where the transfer is from any Income Tax Officer or Income Tax Officers (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction with the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner) to any other Income Tax Officer or Income Tax Officers (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction with the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner) and the offices of all such officers are situated in the same city, locality or place provided further that - (a) where any case has been transferred from any Income Tax Officer or Income Officers to whom the case is so transferred shall have concurrent jurisdiction over such case and shall perfom their functions in accordance with such general or special orders in writing as the Board or the Commissioner or the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner authorised by the Commissioner in this behalf, may make for the purpose of facilitating the performance of such functions; (b) where any case has been transferred from any Income Tax Officer or Income Officers (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction with the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner) to two or more Income Tax Officers with concurrent jurisdiction with the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, the officers (including the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner) to whom the case is transferred shall have concurrent jurisdiction over such case and shall perform their functions in accordance with such general or special orders in writing as the Board or the Commissioner may make for the purpose of facilitating the performance of such functions, and the Income Tax Officers shall perform their functions also in accordance with such orders or directions as the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner may make under sub-section (2) of section 124 or, as the case may be, under sub-section (2) of section 125A. (2) The transfer of a case under sub-section (1) may be made at any stage of the proceedings, and shall not render necessary the reissue of any notice already issued by the Income Tax Officer or Income Tax Officers from who the case is transferred." 7. Section 120 of the Act empowers the Income Tax authorities to perform functions of any other Income Tax Officer that may be assigned to them by the Board and when a statutory powers is conferred on a statutory authority, the said authority is competent to exercise such power fully and effectively. It is the inbuilt the section itself. Income Tax authorities under the scheme of the Act are authorised to exercise its power and to give full effect to the provisions of the Act and to make the Act fully operative. The Commissioner as the superior authority may transfer a case to any of the Income Tax Officer or Officers having concurrent jurisdiction, who are subordinate to him. While exercising such powers the authority is to take note of the criteria specified in the section 127. In the instant case, as alluded earlier, no further action was so far taken after the notice issued under section 127, but it however, appears that the authority in the instant case exercised his power under section 120 of the Act that too prior to issuance of the notification under section 127. The notice dated 8.4.92 speaks categorically the cases which were transferred from the respective officer to the Assistant Commissioner. The notification speaks of transfer of cases relating to all search in the Dibrugarh and Tinsukia Districts of Assam and some of the districts of Arunachal Pradesh to the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Investigation Circle). The said notification did not limit that case of search and seizure which took place after coming of the notification. The Commissioner Income Tax in the notification dated 2.3.93 notified that the notification came into force on and from 1 .4.92 i.e. the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. Investigation Circle. Dibrugarh, and so far as these cases are concerned was invested with the power of the Assistant Commissioner. The power and functions which were exercised by the respective Income Tax Officer were transferred to the Assistant b Commissioner, Income Tax (Investigation Circle). Dibrugarh. Investigation Circle. Dibrugarh, and so far as these cases are concerned was invested with the power of the Assistant Commissioner. The power and functions which were exercised by the respective Income Tax Officer were transferred to the Assistant b Commissioner, Income Tax (Investigation Circle). Dibrugarh. Assumption of jurisdiction, therefore, by the Assistant Commissioner, Income Tax (Investigation Circle) cannot be faulted on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. 8. Considering the fact situation of the case. I do not find merit in the writ petitions. The writ petitions accordingly stand dismissed. The interim orders, if there be any. stand automatically vacated. No costs.