JUDGMENT SANJIB BANERJEE 1. The short point canvassed by the writ petitioners is that the reasonable opportunity of being heard as envisaged in Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 had not been afforded to the petitioning-assessee in transferring the case from the Kolkata circle to the Hyderabad circle. 2. The facts are not much in dispute. By a notice dated December 15, 2010, the Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-XII called upon the petitioning-assessee to show cause as to why the case pertaining to this assessee should not be clubbed with other related assessees and centralised under Deputy Commissioner 2 of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Vishakhapattanam. The first paragraph of the letter reads as follows: "Pursuant to search and seizure operation conducted on 02- 11-2010 in your case, the Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central) Hyderabad sent a proposal for transfer of your case to the D.C.I.T, C.C- 1, Vishakhapattanam for centralization with other group cases for assessment of your case. Hence, in exercise of powers conferred by Section 127(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 read with Sub Section 3 thereof and all other powers enabling the undersigned in this behalf, your case is proposed to be transferred to the said jurisdiction along with all assessment records, current/arrear demands, dossier files, all pending proceedings including recovery proceedings." 3. The petitioning-assessee replied on December 29, 2010. A subsequent letter was written on January 5, 2011 by the petitioningassessee complaining of the assessee not having been favoured with the copy of the proposal of the CIT (Central) Hyderabad. In course of both letters, the assessee maintained that the mere fact that search and seizure operations had been conducted at the premises of the assessee or related parties may not be ground enough to transfer the case from the Kolkata circle to the Hyderabad circle. The hearing was held on January 5, 2011 itself as is recorded in the order dated March 13, 2011. The opening paragraph of the order of transfer records that the original date for hearing was adjourned at the request of the assessee and that a petition had been submitted by the assessee on December 29, 2010 3 and a second letter was submitted on January 5, 2011. The order records the contents of the two letters issued on behalf of the assessee. The order records the contents of the two letters issued on behalf of the assessee. It also appears from the fourth page of the order that the CIT (Central) Hyderabad, was requested to intimate the facts warranting the transfer of the case; whereupon such commissioner had forwarded his reasons for seeking the transfer. It does not appear from the order that despite the assessee's request, the proposal from the Hyderabad circle or the representation containing the reasons for the Hyderabad circle wanting the case to be transferred and clubbed with other related parties was made available by the Commissioner in seisin of the matter under Section 127 of the Act to the petitioning-assessee. Section 127(1) of the Act requires the assessee to be given "a reasonable opportunity of being heard." The provision also mandates that the relevant official in seisin of the matter would record his reasons for directing the transfer of the case. It is evident on a reading of such provision that the reasons why an account or a case is to be transferred from one circle to a distant circle has to be made out to the assessee to afford the assessee a chance to refute the same. The reasons that the officer exercising jurisdiction under Section 127 of the Act has to record are why the transfer should be effected notwithstanding the assessee's representation following the reasons initially given for the proposed transfer. 4. The principles of natural justice demand that the opportunity of being heard is given some meaning and is not observed only as a formality. For a person to be able to deal with a matter pertaining to the transfer of his case from one circle to a distant circle, he has first to be told as to why it is necessary so to do. He will only then be able to deal with the reasons and explain why it should not be so done. In the absence of such a scenario, the reasonable opportunity of being heard as envisaged in Section 127(1) of the Act is not afforded to the assessee and the hearing becomes an idle exercise and a meaningless charade. He will only then be able to deal with the reasons and explain why it should not be so done. In the absence of such a scenario, the reasonable opportunity of being heard as envisaged in Section 127(1) of the Act is not afforded to the assessee and the hearing becomes an idle exercise and a meaningless charade. The relevant Commissioner in this case not only ignored the request of the petitioning-assessee to make over the proposal sent by the Hyderabad circle, but it is also evident that the Commissioner received the reasons subsequently sought from the Hyderabad circle and unilaterally based his order for transfer on such grounds without affording the petitioning-assessee a chance to deal with the same. The order impugned smacks of the abject violation of the most elementary canons of natural justice. As a consequence, W.P.No.386 of 2011 is allowed. The order of transfer under Section 127 of the Act dated March 17, 2011 is set aside. The relevant Commissioner is permitted to commence the process afresh but ensure that the petitioning-assessee is afforded the reasonable opportunity that the statute enjoins on the official to grant to the concerned assessee. There will be no order as to costs. Urgent certified photocopies of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.