ORDER Shantanu Kemkar, J. 1. This order shall also govern disposal of Writ Petn. No. 3252 of 2006, as common question of law and facts is involved in both the aforesaid petitioner. 2. For convenience, the facts of Writ Petn. No. 3241 of 2006 are being taken. The petitioner claims to be a registered partnership firm having its principal place of business and office at Jawahar Marg, Indore and was being assessed for the purposes of Income Tax at Indore. A notice dt. 1st Nov., 1993 (Annex. P-1) was issued to the petitioner by the CIT, Bhopal invoking the powers conferred under the provisions of Section 127(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (for short the 'Act') for transfer of petitioner's cases from Indore to Bhopal Circle of the IT Department. Petitioner objected to the aforesaid notice (Annex. P-1) by its letter dt. 19th Nov., 1993 (Annex. PA-1) and dt. 13th Dec, 1993 (Annex. P-1C). After receipt of petitioner's letters objecting the proposed transfer of cases, no action was taken by the Revenue and the proceedings were dropped; and the petitioner was continued to be assessed by the ITO, Indore under the jurisdiction of CIT, Indore. When the matter stood thus, in the year 2005, the petitioner learnt that once again the CIT, Bhopal has initiated the proceedings for transfer of petitioner's cases from Indore to Bhopal. The petitioner, therefore, submitted a letter by way of an objection on 21st Nov., 2005 (Annex. P-6), objecting transfer of its file from Indore to Bhopal. 3. In reply to the petitioner's aforesaid objection, the CIT, Indore informed to the petitioner vide letter dt. 25th Nov., 2005 (Annex. P7) that the Department has already decided to transfer the petitioner's cases from kidore to Bhopal and in the circumstances, petitioner would be at liberty to question the jurisdiction of the AO, Bhopal. Feeling aggrieved by this communication, petitioners have filed these petitions. 4. G.M. Chaphekar, learned senior Counsel has argued that powers to-transfer the cases are conferred upon the authorities under Section 127 of the Act. However, the impugned decision with regard to transfer of petitioner's cases has been taken contrary to the provisions contained in Section 127 of the Act. According to him the transfer of cases is from the jurisdiction of one CIT of the IT Department to the another CIT of the IT Department, Section 127(2) of the Act would be attracted. However, the impugned decision with regard to transfer of petitioner's cases has been taken contrary to the provisions contained in Section 127 of the Act. According to him the transfer of cases is from the jurisdiction of one CIT of the IT Department to the another CIT of the IT Department, Section 127(2) of the Act would be attracted. He submitted that the petitioner has not been given any opportunity of hearing before taking the decision, moreover neither the decision has been communicated nor there are any reasons in the decision for the transfer of cases. Thus, according to him the decision of transfer of cases is liable to be quashed. 5. Mr. R.L. Jain, learned senior Counsel appearing for Revenue, has submitted that the impugned decision taken by the Revenue with regard to transfer of petitioner's cases from Indore to. Bhopal was justified, as the petitioner is carrying on its business at Bhopal and not at Indore. In the circumstances, according to him, no case for interference is made out. 6. Admittedly, petitioner's IT returns were being subjected to assessment by ITO, Indore since last 30 years; after the year 1993 on petitioners objecting to the proposed transfer of cases, no action was taken. Thereafter in the year 2005, vide communication dt. 25th Nov., 2005 (Annex. P-7),the petitioner was informed by the CIT, Indore that the decision has already been taken for transferring its cases from Indore to the AO, Bhopal under the CIT, Bhopal. 7. A bare perusal of the impugned communication dt. 25th Nov., 2005 (Annex. P7) it is clear that the CIT, Indore from whose jurisdiction the cases were to be transferred, had not given any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, nor reasons have been recorded in this regard. It is also revealed from the order sheets dt. 18th July, 2007 and 18th Sept., 2007 recorded by this Court that the Revenue had failed to file an affidavit stating therein that before ordering the transfer of the cases an opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner and reasons were recorded for transfer of the cases. On the other hand, the documents produced by the Revenue at the time of hearing, show that pursuant to the request of transfer of cases made by the CIT, Bhopal vide letter dt. On the other hand, the documents produced by the Revenue at the time of hearing, show that pursuant to the request of transfer of cases made by the CIT, Bhopal vide letter dt. 28th Oct., 2005, the CIT-II, Indore took following decision on 8th Nov., 2005: I agree with the contention of the CIT, Bhopal that the assessees concerned are assessable at Bhopal and not at Indore. This being so, there is no need to pass any order under Section 127(2) of the IT Act. The relevant case records may be sent to the CIT, Bhopal immediately for necessary action at his end regarding the jurisdiction of his AOs over the relevant cases. Thereafter, in compliance of the decision dt. 8th Nov., 2005, the petitioner's files were transferred from Indore to Bhopal along with letter dt. 15th Dec, 2005. 8. Since the cases are being ordered to be transferred from the jurisdiction of CIT, Indore to the jurisdiction of CIT, Bhopal, Section 127(2) of the Act providing power to transfer the cases in such situation would have application. Section 127 reads thus: Section 127. Power to transfer cases- (1) The Director General or Chief CIT or CIT 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 AOs subordinate to him (whether with or without concurrent Jurisdiction) to any other AO or AOs (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) also subordinate to him. (2) Where the AO or AOs from whom the case is to be transferred and the AO or AOs to whom the case is to be transferred are not subordinate to the same Director General or Chief CIT or CIT: (a) where the Directors General or Chief CIT or CIT to whom such AOs are subordinate are in agreement, then the Director General or Chief CIT or CIT 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 Directors General or Chief CIT or CIT aforesaid are not in agreement, the order transferring the case may, similarly, be passed by the Board or any such Director General or Chief CIT or CIT 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 AO or AOs (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) to any other AO or AOs (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 reissue of any notice already issued by the AO or AOs from whom the case is transferred. 9. Section 127(2) of the Act provides that where the AO from whom the case is to be transferred and the AO to whom the case is to be transferred are not subordinate to the same CIT, then, if, both CITs are in agreement, then CIT from whose jurisdiction the case is to be transferred may after giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee of being heard in the matter whenever it is so possible and after recording reasons for doing so, pass the order. The entire action on the part of the Revenue lacks compliance of the requirement of Section 127(2) of the Act. 10. In the case of Ajantha Industries and Ors. v. CBDT and Ors. [1976]102ITR281(SC) , the Supreme Court while considering the scope of Section 127(1) of the Act has held that, "the requirement of recording reasons under Section 127(1) of the IT Act, 1961, for the transfer of a case from one ITO to another, is a mandatory direction under the law and non communication thereof to the assessee is not saved by showing that the reasons exist in the file although not communicated to the assessee. Recording of reasons and disclosure thereof are not a mere idle formality. Recording of reasons and disclosure thereof are not a mere idle formality. When law requires reasons to be recorded in a particular order affecting prejudicially the interests of any person, who can challenge the order in Court, it ceases to be a mere administrative order and the vice of violation of the principles of natural justice on account of omission to communicate the reasons is not expiated". 11. In R.K. Agarwal and Ors. v. CIT and Ors. [2006]283ITR532(All) a Division Bench of Allahabad High Court has followed the views expressed in the matter of Ajantha Industries (supra). 12. In the case of State of Himachal Pradesh v. Paras Ram and Ors. 2008 AIR SCW 373 it has been observed by the Supreme Court that reasons are live-links between the mind of decision taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at. Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before the Court. The affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made. 13. Having regard to the law laid down by the Supreme Court, the clear provisions of Section 127(2) of the Act and the documents produced before the Court, I am of the view that the impugned decision/action taken by the respondent Revenue in transferring of petitioner's cases to Bhopal, is contrary to the requirement of Section 127(2) of the Act and against the settled legal position and as such cannot be sustained. 14. Consequently, both the petitions are allowed. The impugned communication (Annex. P7) is hereby quashed. However, respondent Revenue is at liberty to take necessary steps, if so advised, for transfer of cases by adhering to the provisions of Section 127(2) of the Act. No orders as to costs. A copy of the order be retained in the connected writ petition. Petition allowed in favour of assessee.