1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.395 OF 2010 Diana Watches and Ancillaries Private Limited ..Petitioner. Versus Commissioner of Income-tax, City-5 & Others ..Respondents. Ms.Aasifa Khan for the petitioner. Mr.J.S. Saluja for the respondent. CORAM : Dr.D.Y. Chandrachud & J.P. Devadhar, JJ. DATE : 4th March, 2010. P.C. : 1. Rule. With the consent of Counsel, rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent of Counsel for both the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. The challenge in these proceedings is to an order dated 29th September 2009 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax – 5, Mumbai transferring the case of the petitioner to the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Range – 1, Pune under Section 127(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The attention of the Court has been drawn to an order passed by the Division Bench on 2 7th December 2009 in Writ Petition No.10067 of 2009 and companion petitions by a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Shri Justice V.C. Daga and Hon’ble Shri Justice J.P. Devadhar. Both the learned counsel have agreed to a similar order being passed in this case. 3. In the circumstances, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that without going into the merits of the impugned order, it may be set aside and the impugned order may be treated as a notice to show-cause upon which the petitioner would be heard by any other Officer other than the officer who passed the impugned order. The petitioners have no objection to this course of action. Ordered accordingly. In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned order dated 29th September 2009 and direct that it shall be treated as a notice to show-cause. The petitioner shall submit a reply within a period of two weeks. An Officer other than the officer who passed the impugned order shall hear and decide the question of transfer within a period of four weeks thereafter and pass a reasoned order after furnishing to the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. All the rival contentions on merits are kept open. The petition is accordingly disposed of in terms of this agreed order. 4. Rule is made absolute accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. (J.P. Devadhar, J.) (Dr.D.Y. Chandrachud, J.)