ORDER : 1. This writ petition has been filed by two petitioners, namely, M/s. Lalit Hans Protien Pvt. Ltd., and Shri Kamal Agrawal, who is Director of petitioner no.1 firm, challenging validity of order dated 07.08.2014 passed by respondent no.2 – the Commissioner of Income Tax, Alwar, under Section 127(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, read with Section 11 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. The respondent no.2 - the Commissioner of Income Tax, Alwar, by aforesaid order, has transferred the case of the petitioner from ACIT Circle-I, Alwar, to DCIT CC-XXV, Kolkata, for administrative convenience and to coordinate investigation and assessment, as the case, in his opinion, was connected to the case of Purti Group of cases, Kolkata. 2. Petitioner no.1 M/s. Lalit Hans Protien Pvt. Ltd. is a private limited company having been incorporated by M/s. Hari Kewal Solvx private Limited by the Registrar of Companies, Rajasthan, Jaipur, at no.17-018216 of 2003-04. Its registered office is at Alwar. Petitioner no.2 Shri Kamal Agrawal is its Director. According to records, petitioner also sales its products to various parties at Kolkata including M/s Purti Vanaspati Private Limited, Kolkata, from whom it also buys palm oil. Promoters of Purti group of companies happen to be the real brothers of Shri Kamal Agrawal, the Director of petitioner no.1 Company. M/s. Purti Vanaspati Private Limited came under the scrutiny of the Income Tax Department for investigation. A search and seizure operation was carried out by the Income Tax Department in the premise of said Purti Group of Companies at Kolkata way back on 18.09.2012. The Income Tax Department found various incriminating material from there. Simultaneously, a search under Section 133 was also carried out by the officials of the Income Tax Department at Alwar in the office of the petitioner-company. Petitioner was served with a notice dated 04.08.2014 by the CIT, Alwar communicating that with a view to validate the investigation in the case of M/s. Purti Vanaspati Private Limited, its assessment file was proposed to be transferred to Kolkata. Petitioner was required to file its objections on or before 12.03.2013. Petitioner submitted his objections to the proposed centralization vide letter dated 11.03.2013. Petitioner was required to file its objections on or before 12.03.2013. Petitioner submitted his objections to the proposed centralization vide letter dated 11.03.2013. Nothing was heard till the respondent issued a fresh notice to the petitioner-company on 20.05.2014 alleging that assessment under Section 153A was required to be completed in the Company's case by Deputy CIT Central Circle-XXV, Kolkata in order to facilitate coordinated investigation, the file was required to be transferred to the office of Kolkata and petitioner was asked to file its objections. Petitioner-company through its authorized representative, M/s. Khetawat Agarwal & Company, Chartered Accountants, filed its objections vide letter dated 05.06.2014 denying all the allegations. The CIT, Alwar, however, by impugned order dated 07.08.2013 directing the transfer of the petitioner-company's file and assessment records from the jurisdiction of Alwar to that of Kolkata. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this court by way filing present writ petition. 3. Shri Anant Kasliwal, learned counsel for petitioner, has argued that the petitioner-company neither has its functional extensional plan or even trading corporation at Kolkata. It has its factory in Matsya Industrial Area, Alwar. Its registered office is at Alwar. The petitioner-Company is duly registered with the Commercial Taxes Department, Alwar, who has issued to it a TIN (Annexure-4). Petitioner no.2 Shri Kamal Agrawal is in the control of the Company ever since the establishment of its oil extraction plant at Alwar. Entire staff of the petitioner-company is at Alwar. Petitioner no.2 has shifted his base from Kolkata to Alwar and New Delhi after suffering a partition/separation from his family at Kolkata way back in the year 2000. Petitioner no.2 is direction of petitioner no.1 and he has no office or interest at Kolkata. No member of the immediate family of petitioner no.2 lives or carries on any business activity at Kolkata. Learned counsel, in this behalf, referred to specific affidavit (Annexure-11) filed by petitioner no.2 Shri Kamal Agrawal. Statement of petitioner no.2 was recorded under Section 83-A at the time of survey on 18.09.2012. 4. No member of the immediate family of petitioner no.2 lives or carries on any business activity at Kolkata. Learned counsel, in this behalf, referred to specific affidavit (Annexure-11) filed by petitioner no.2 Shri Kamal Agrawal. Statement of petitioner no.2 was recorded under Section 83-A at the time of survey on 18.09.2012. 4. Shri Anant Kasliwal, learned counsel for petitioner, further argued that survey carried out at factory premise of the petitioner-company, did not reveal live link or connection with M/s. Purti Vanaspati Private Limited, Kolkata, or the existence of any interlacing of funds of the petitioner-company and its director with that of M/s. Purti Vanaspati Private Limited except in respect of purchase of palm oil and regular sale of kachchi dhani mustard oil and regular sales of its produce. No incriminating material was found in the search at the premise of M/s Purti Vanaspati Private Limited. Its registered office is at Alwar. Petitioner no.2 Shri Kamal Agrawal is its Director. Petitioner-company filed all its returns of income tax with respondent no.3 – the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-I, Alwar, on yearly basis for last more than a decade. Its books of accounts are maintained at Alwar and entire statutory records are also retained at the registered office of the petitioner-company at Alwar. Petitioner carries on the business of purchasing mustard oil seeds, extracting edible oil therefrom and refining the same and marketing it in packeted form from its factory premises at Matsya Industrial Area, Alwar. 5. Shri Anant Kasliwal, learned counsel for the petitioners, argued that the impugned order is invalid inasmuch as it refers to certain correspondence having been exchanged between the respondent no.2 with his counterpart at Kolkata, which has not been made available to the petitioner for examination. 6. The impugned order has referred to examining 'the entries recorded in documents/share transactions, books of accounts and hard disc', as all the aforesaid material related to the petitioner-company, whereas factually none of the aforesaid material belong to the petitioner-company but actually belong to M/s. Purti Vanaspati Private Limited. It thus shows that the impugned order has been passed in mechanical manner without application of mind. The petitioner-company is not connected with M/s. Purti Vanaspati Private Limited nor otherwise it is connected with the real estate activities of the said group. It thus shows that the impugned order has been passed in mechanical manner without application of mind. The petitioner-company is not connected with M/s. Purti Vanaspati Private Limited nor otherwise it is connected with the real estate activities of the said group. Neither reasons have been recorded in the impugned order nor opportunity of hearing has been provided before passing the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on judgment of Allahabad High Court in R.K. Agarwal Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and Others – (2006) 283 ITR 532 and also judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Rajesh Mahajan and Others Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax – (2002) 257 ITR 577 . 7. Learned counsel would submit that the impugned order fails to disclose any meeting of minds having taken place between the respondents no.2, 3 and 5 in respect of transfer of file and assessment record of the petitioner-company to Kolkata, which is a sine qua non to the framing of any valid order under Section 127(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Section 127 (2) discloses the legislative intent requiring a meeting of conscious minds of the Superintending Officer of the officer having been existing jurisdiction and the Superintending Officer of the officer to whom the file is proposed to be transferred. No such meeting of mind has taken place between the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur and Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata. In this case, a mere request from Kolkata Officer has been acted upon as a direction by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Alwar. Reliance in this connection has been placed on judgments in Y. Moideen Kunhi and Co. & Others Vs. ITO (1993) 204 ITR 29, Bansal Sharevests Services Ltd. And Another Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and Another – (2006) 283 ITR 332 All., Lords Distillery & Another Vs. CIT & Others – (2007) 294 ITR 147 Cal., Noorul Islam Educational Trust Vs. CIT, WP (MD) No.60) of 2009 of High Court of Madras dated 11.12.2009, CIT Vs. Greenworld Corporation – (2009) 7 SCC 69 , Global Energy Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT – (2013) 89 DTR Bom. 194 and Sunisha Impex (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT – (2014) 104 DTR Bom. 462. 8. CIT, WP (MD) No.60) of 2009 of High Court of Madras dated 11.12.2009, CIT Vs. Greenworld Corporation – (2009) 7 SCC 69 , Global Energy Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT – (2013) 89 DTR Bom. 194 and Sunisha Impex (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT – (2014) 104 DTR Bom. 462. 8. It is argued that the respondent's case throughout has been that the petitioner-company is part and parcel of the so-called Purti Group of companies, even though no material linking the petitioner with the said Purti Group of companies has been brought on record, except the regular day to day purchase/sale of mustard oil/edible oil, all of which transaction has been duly recorded in the petitioner's books of accounts and disclosed in its returns. The respondents merely referred to and relied upon the phrase 'to facilitate coordinated investigation'. They have also heavily relied on the fact that the petitioner's directors are still filing their returns of income at Kolkata, which have not been transferred to Alwar despite migration from Kolkata to Delhi/Alwar. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his arguments, has relied on the judgments in Sahara Airlines Ltd. Vs. DGIT – (2006) 260 ITR 33 All., Continental Milkose (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT & Others – (2013) 351 ITR 292 Guw., J.R. Tatia Charitable Trust Vs. Deputy CIT – (2013) 350 ITR 226 Raj. And Sriram Vessel Scrap Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT – (2013) 350 ITR 259 9. On the contrary, Smt. Parinitoo Jain, learned counsel for the respondents, has argued that the petitioner no.2, is the Director of the petitioner no.1 company. The permanent account number of the petitioner no.2 is with DCIT CC-XXV, Kolkata (AO Code DLC-CC-75-25, Kolkata). He has been assessed at Kolkata. The investigation wing at Kolkata had initiated search in 23 cases of Purti Group, which included the name of the petitionercompany. In one of the group cases at Kolkata i.e. M/s. Purti Vanaspati Pvt. Ltd., Shri Kishore Kumar Agrawal, who is brother of petitioner no.2, search was initiated. Pursuant to the search carried out at Kolkata, it came to notice of the Investigation Wing that the petitioner-company was involved in huge business transactions with Purti Group of Kolkata. A survey was also carried out under Section 133A on 18.09.2012 at the factory premises of petitioner assessee. Pursuant to the search carried out at Kolkata, it came to notice of the Investigation Wing that the petitioner-company was involved in huge business transactions with Purti Group of Kolkata. A survey was also carried out under Section 133A on 18.09.2012 at the factory premises of petitioner assessee. In order to examine the entries recorded in the documents/share transactions, books of accounts and to carry out further proper investigations in a coordinated manner, all the cases of group and the connected cases were required to be centralized at Kolkata where most of the cases were being assessed. A notice to that effect was given by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Alwar to the petitioner on 04.03.2013. The reason for transfer was specified in the notice and it was also stated in the notice that the assessee could file objections or send written submissions or appear personally or through an authorized representative. The petitioner assessee filed the objections on 11.03.2013. Again on 05.06.2014, the assessee filed reply thereto. Thereafter on 07.08.2014, the Commissioner of Income Tax, Alwar, passed a speaking order for transfer of the case to Kolkata. Perusal of the order would reveal that in para 2 thereof it has been specifically observed by the Commissioner that opportunity of being heard was given to the assessee and also the written submissions were filed. 10. Smt. Parinitoo Jain, learned counsel for the respondents revenue, argued that the affidavit of the petitioner (Annexure-11) would reveal that there is no denial of the fact that he had been having business transactions with the group of cases at Kolkata and also the fact that the search has been carried out at the premises of the family members of the petitioner. Section 127(1) of the Income Tax Act, empowers the Director General or the Chief Commissioner or the Commissioner of Income Tax to transfer any case from one assessing officer to another, if a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter, wherever it is possible to do so, has been given and reasons are recorded for transferring the case. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Alwar was empowered to transfer the case and he has recorded the reasons for such transfer which have been communicated to the assessee. The notice was given and assessee was granted reasonable opportunity of hearing. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Alwar was empowered to transfer the case and he has recorded the reasons for such transfer which have been communicated to the assessee. The notice was given and assessee was granted reasonable opportunity of hearing. Learned counsel for the revenue, in support of her arguments, relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in K.P. Mohammad Salim Vs. CIT – (2008) 300 ITR 302 SC, and that of other High Courts in Sahara Airlines Vs. CIT – (2006) 286 ITR 33 Allahabad, Sahara India Commercial Corporation Limited Vs. CIT – (2009) 310 ITR 372, ATS Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. CIT – (2009) 318 ITR 299 Delhi, K.R. Tantia Charitable Trust Vs. CIT – (2013) 355 ITR 226, Continental Milkose (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT – (2013) 351 ITR 292 Gauhati, Shree Ram Vessel Scrap P. Ltd. Vs. CIT – (2013) 355 ITR 255 Gujarat, Ambika Solves Vs. CIT – (2014) 267 CTR 258 Madhya Pradesh, Charan Pal Singh Vs. CIT – (2008) 306 ITR 132 Punjab & Haryana, Rishipur Vidyapeeth Vs. Union of India – 136 ITR 139, Maheshwari Lime Vs. CIT – 147 ITR 804, Bhatia Minerals Vs. CIT – 195 ITR 137 (ST), JMM Vs. CIT – 225 ITR 284, Trimurti Fragrances (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT – (2006) 153 Taxman 598 Allahabad, and Redwood Hotel (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT – (2003) 259 ITR 191 Ker. 11. I have given my anxious consideration to rival submissions and perused the material on record. 12. Law that can be culled out from cited cases is that for a valid transfer of a case under Section 127 of the IT Act, a notice should be served upon the assessee calling upon his objections and such notice should disclose reasons, assessee should be given opportunity to be heard, the order transferring the case should record reasons and that the recorded reasons should have live link with the order of transfer and should have direct correlation with the order of transfer. 13. In the present case, two show cause notices were served upon the petitioner by the CIT, Alwar. 13. In the present case, two show cause notices were served upon the petitioner by the CIT, Alwar. The first notice was served on 04.03.2013, wherein it was stated that consequent upon search operations of M/s. Purti Group of Companies, and in order to facilitate coordinated investigation, the case is proposed to be transferred and therefore, he was called upon to file his objections, if any, on or before 11.03.2013, if the petitioner does not agree to the proposed transfer of the case. The subsequent show cause notice was issued on 20.05.2014, which was detailed and comprehensive, wherein it was mentioned that search and seizure operation u/S 132 was carried out on the Purti Group of cases on 18.09.2012 by the Investigation wing, Income tax Department, Kolkata. As per information received from Commissioner of Income tax-III, Kolkata vide letter dated 06.05.2014, search warrant was executed u/S 132(1) against the assessee company M/s Lalit Hans Protein P. Ltd. At office premises 14, N.S. Road, 4th floor, Kolkata// 1. Search was also conducted in the case of Directors Sh. Kamal Agarwal & Sh. Dinesh Agarwal, at residence premises at 49A, Tollygunge Circular Road, Kolkata. Assessment in your case u/S 153A has to be completed by Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax – Central Circle-XXV, Kolkata along with the case of Directors and other cases covered by search. In view of these facts, it would be necessary for coordinated investigation that the case of petitioner is assessed at Kolkata, by transferring it from present assessing officer of Alwar. 14. The impugned order clearly indicates that search and seizure operation under Section 132 was conducted at the residential and business premises of Purti group of cases at Kolkata on 18.09.2012. A survey under Section 133A was also carried out on 18.09.2012 by the Investigation Wing of Income Tax Department, Kolkata, and factory premises of the assessee company situated at Alwar. The DCIT CCXXV, Kolkata, has informed that search and seizure operation under Section 132 in the case of M/s. Lalit Hans Protien Pvt. Ltd., in respect of Purti Group was conducted on 18.09.2012, at its Kolkata office and copy of Panchnama dated 19.09.2012 shows that warrant in the case of petitioner was also issued along-with other Purti Group cases. During search operation, papers of connected transactions, interlinked business activities of the assessee company were also found and seized from its Kolkata office. During search operation, papers of connected transactions, interlinked business activities of the assessee company were also found and seized from its Kolkata office. In order to examine the entries recorded in documents/share transactions, books of accounts and hard disc and to carry out further proper investigation in a coordinate manner, all the cases of group and the connected cases are required to be centralized at one place with the assessing officer. The communication for centralization has been received vide letter dated 27.02.2013 from Commissioner of Income tax-III, Kolkata on the basis of recommendation of the DGIT (Inv.), Kolkata who has initiated these searches. It is further mentioned that the assessee is having all business transactions from Alwar with Purti Group of Kolkata, which needs proper and deep investigation in the light of seized material. The impugned order also records that when case is being transferred, this assessee has sufficient link and case is closely connected. The Director of the petitionercompany i.e. petitioner no.2 herein also happens to be brother of Purti group main persons. Their name is recorded in the list of searched persons as per the EST details of PAN of Shri Dinesh Kumar Agrawal and Shri Kamal Kumar Agrawal, who were also Directors of M/s. Lalit Hans Protien Pvt. Ltd., and their address of Kolkata has been given. The Director of the petitioner-company was thus shown having sufficient link with them in Kolkata long back. 15. The Central Board of Direct Tax has issued guidelines dated 17.09.2008 on centralization of search cases under Section 127 of the IT Act, 1961. 16. The Director (Inv.III) of the Central Board of Direct Taxes, has further issued a circular on 25.04.2014 indicating that cases fall in the broad categories enumerated in the circular can be considered for the purpose of centralization, which categories are mentioned herein below:- “i. Non-search cases connected with the search cases where findings of the search have material bearing and needs of coordinated investigation/interest of revenue require such cases to be assessed in the Central Charge. ii. Survey cases or enquiry cases (whether such enquiries were conducted by any wing of the department or an outside agency) wherein some organized/systematic manipulation of accounts/fraud/substantial revenue is involved and/or coordination with outside agencies or a large number of officers within the department is required. iii. ii. Survey cases or enquiry cases (whether such enquiries were conducted by any wing of the department or an outside agency) wherein some organized/systematic manipulation of accounts/fraud/substantial revenue is involved and/or coordination with outside agencies or a large number of officers within the department is required. iii. Cases arising out of a scam as a result of investigation/enquiry conducted by some other Law Enforcement Agency where needs of coordinated investigation/interest of revenue require centralization. iv. Complex cases of substantial revenue implication requiring in-depth investigation. v. Any other case which is required to be centralized for administrative requirement or other reasons stated by the DsGIT/CsCIT, as the case may be.” 17. First categories of cases, which can be centralized as per the said circular, is pertaining to non-search cases connected with the search cases where findings of the search have material bearings and needs of coordinated investigation or interest of revenue require such cases to be assessed in the Central Charge. No doubt, the aforesaid guidelines are meant for internal guidance of the officers of the department, but nevertheless they cannot be ignored in impunity. Perusal of the aforesaid order thus would indicate that it was not a case where no reason has been given for transfer of the case to Kolkata. Reasons given by the respondents for transferring the case of the petitioner-company to Kolkata cannot be said to be totally irrelevant and obnoxious, and it cannot be held that the respondents had no material whatsoever to support the order passed under Section 127 of the IT Act for transferring the case of the petitioner from Alwar to Kolkata. 18. There is thus no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the department and there is no merit in the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. 19. Consequent upon dismissal of writ petition, stay application, filed therewith, does not survive and same is also dismissed.