AMITAVA LALA, J. ( 1 ) LET the affidavit of service filed in court today be kept with the record. ( 2 ) BY making this writ petition, in effect, the petitioners have challenged the order of transfer of the case from the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-1, Asansol, the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle VIII, Calcutta. The contentions of the writ petitioners are that by virtue of Section 127 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Director-General or Chief 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 Officer 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. ( 3 ) THE specific case of the petitioners is that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners before transfer of the case from the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-I, Asansol, to the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle VIII, Calcutta. The petitioners' supporting case is reported in Chotanagpur Industrial Gases (P.) Ltd. v. CIT, wherein a single Bench has decided a similar type of issue by saying that since in the show-cause notice the grounds or reasons for proposed transfer was not indicated, in that matter the entire proceedings were vitiated and were liable to be set aside. The case as cited by Mr. Bajoria, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner, is supported by various Supreme Court judgments as referred to therein. ( 4 ) MR. Bajoria, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, further submitted that they were not aware in respect of any reason of such transfer. It might have been the reason as indicated in the bottom of the order dated August 16, 1999, at page 145 of the writ petition, in respect of Centralisation of Transport Contractors involved in bitumen scam--U. K. Patesaria Group of cases. It is further contended by the petitioners that the search and seizure occurred two years back, i. e. , in the year 1998 at Asansol. The petitioners are carrying on their respective businesses at Asansol. It is further contended by the petitioners that the search and seizure occurred two years back, i. e. , in the year 1998 at Asansol. The petitioners are carrying on their respective businesses at Asansol. Therefore, in all probability the case has to be heard at Asansol since it is a matter of convenience of the assessee. Therefore, I do not give any opportunity to the income-tax authority as they caused a serious violation of justice. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that the petitioners are involved in a bitumen scam. Therefore, by virtue of Section 158b onwards of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which are effective on and from July 1, 1995, a block assessment is required. Section 127 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, may not be granted in a situation when it is coming under Chapter XIV-B in a case of special procedure for assessment of such cases. It is not a general case of transfer which ought to be decided upon giving notice under Section 127 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Moreover, after transferring to the new incumbent a show-cause notice has been given which is available at page 129 of the writ petition so far back as on August 26, 1999. Therefore, the petitioners could not be given any opportunity of such type of hearing when the cases have already been transferred. ( 6 ) IN reply the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents contended that it is not a case where the petitioners are sleeping over the order of transfer from August 16, 1999, when it was passed, but in all material times they have taken steps by writing letters to the authority concerned to give an opportunity of hearing. One of such letters is dated September 21, 1999. He further stated that the authority concerned with the bitumen scam can proceed independently by delivering an independent judgment that it does not necessarily mean that no opportunity could be given to the petitioners. ( 7 ) I have carefully considered the submissions made by the parties. It appears to me that the power as given under Section 127 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is a power of superintendence which is much more effective power than the ordinary power of the administrative officer. ( 7 ) I have carefully considered the submissions made by the parties. It appears to me that the power as given under Section 127 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is a power of superintendence which is much more effective power than the ordinary power of the administrative officer. In a similar situation when the court on a power of superintendence under Clause 13 of the Letters Patent or under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure hears any matter, the court always enquires about the convenience and inconvenience of the parties. Therefore, the court cannot after following such principles, allow the administrative authority to do injustice in a similarly placed situation unless it is unequivocally declared under the law what are the circumstances for transferring the matter without notice. Therefore, this is a case of violation of natural justice. It is to be remembered further that unless and until one is found guilty under the scam, he cannot be seen in the eye of law as guilty. Under such circumstances, unless the law is clear to the extent what are the consequences of not giving any notice or opportunity of hearing in the case of transfer under Section 127 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as the law as laid down by the Supreme Court on numerous occasions which has been considered by the single Bench of this court, it cannot be construed that it is an imposed situation not to issue any notice to the parties or not giving opportunity of hearing before transfer. Further, no case has come forward before this court that the petitioners are concealing any document from the authority or such type of law relating to the assessment cannot be done even at Asansol instead and in place of Calcutta. The convenience squarely speaks that the Asansol is appropriate forum but not Calcutta. Save and except carrying on the business by some other person involved in scam at Calcutta, no ground has been made out for such transfer. Such ground alone is not cogent ground. ( 8 ) UNDER such circumstances, I think that the business of convenience or inconvenience lies in favour of the petitioners. So far as the question of limitation is concerned, it is rightly pointed out by Mr. Such ground alone is not cogent ground. ( 8 ) UNDER such circumstances, I think that the business of convenience or inconvenience lies in favour of the petitioners. So far as the question of limitation is concerned, it is rightly pointed out by Mr. Bajoria, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, that under Section 129 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in a case of changes of incumbent of an office, the income-tax authority so succeeding may continue the proceeding from the stage at which the proceeding was left by his predecessors provided that the assessee concerned may demand that before the proceeding is so continued the previous proceeding or any part thereof be reopened or that before any order of assessment is passed against him, he be re-heard. Therefore, there is no scope of de novo hearing before the changed officer. ( 9 ) UNDER such circumstances, considering all the aspects of the matter and since it is a question of law, I allow the writ petition without giving any direction for filing affidavit herein. Therefore, the appropriate authority is directed to give a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioners by issuance of notice and by passing a reasoned order of transfer within a period of six weeks from the date of the communication of this order. ( 10 ) TILL one week after passing of such order by the Commissioner, the impugned assessment proceeding shall remain stayed. ( 11 ) THERE will be no order as to costs.