Satish Chandra, C.J.
1. The petitioners are aggrieved by an order of transfer of their assessment circle from Hapur to Kanpur under Section 127(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The petitioners' grievance is that no reasoned order was passed or communicated to the petitioners. From the counter-affidavit it appears that notices to all the assessees in the group of Rameshwar Dass Mittal were served inviting them to show cause why all their cases be not transferred to Kanpur Circle. The notices were duly served. The petitioners had notice of the date of hearing, namely, 1st August, 1975. On that date nobody appeared. On July 30, 1975, an application was received by post praying for an adjournment. This application was refused and the order of transfer was passed on the ground t 'a lot of enquiries must be made before assessments are completed. Delay will hamper proper progress in our work. Transfer orders may issue'. In the counter-affidavit it has been clarified that it was expedient to combine these cases. Hapur falls within the Central Circle of Meerut, which is under the administrativecharge of the CIT, Delhi. Delhi people were overburdened and were not in a position to receive any more cases. That is why the cases were transferred to the ITO, Kanpur, because the only other Central Circle office in Uttar Pradesh is at Kanpur.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has invited our attention to Ajanta Industries v. CBDT : 102ITR281(SC) , that a reasoned transfer order must not only be passed but must also be communicated to the assessee. In that case, the assessee had appeared and objected to the transfer. In the present case, the assessees did not appear and no objection was filed to the proposed transfer. The Board could hence believe that the assessees had no objection. In this situation, it will be an idle formality to quash the order for non-communication of the order of transfer to the assessees. Moreover, learned counsel for the revenue submitted that they will furnish a copy of the reasoned order to the petitioners within a month from today.
3. Subject to these observations, the writ petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed, but we make no order for costs.