JUDGMENT judgment of court was delivered by N. Kumar J.-The Revenue has preferred this appeal against order passed by learned single judge transferring case of assessee to Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-3, Hyderabad and remitting proceeding for fresh consideration. assessee is company. search under section 132 of Incometax Act, 1961 (for short hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), was conducted in premises of M/s. Bibi General Hospital and Cancer Centre, Malakpet, Hyderabad. sum of Rs. 85,00,000 was seized in 12 envelopes. statement of Sri Syed Iqbad Mehdi was recorded and he admitted cash being handed over by Sri Naseer Aziz A. N., who is managing director of assessee. Sri Naseer Aziz also admitted his visit to hospital on February 7, 2009. Survey under section 133A of Act was conducted in case of assessee. residential premises of Sri Syed Mohd. Mehdi Span Design and Development P. Ltd. v. CIT [2013] 1 ITR-OL 322 (Karn). was also subjected to search and incriminating documents were found and seized. Post-search investigation statements were recorded from Sri Naseer Aziz and seized materials were confronted to him. According to Revenue from entire investigation, it was found that Sri Naseer Aziz through assessee was having various transactions through Sri Syed M. Mehdi. For co- ordinated investigation, assessee was proposed to be centralised at Hyderabad along with 8 other assessees. individual assessment of Sri Nazeer Aziz and his wife were also centralised at Hyderabad. show-cause notice was issued under section 127 of Act to respondent. assessee through his managing director, Sri Nazeer Aziz, objected for transfer of assessment from Bengaluru to Hyderabad. After considering objections raised, order came to be passed transferring assessment from Bengaluru to Hyderabad for co-ordinated investigation. Thereafter, notices were issued under section 153C of Act. assessee filed its return after issue of notice under sections 143(2) and 143(1) of Act. Assessing Officer concluded assessment for assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 by assessing income at Rs. 14,04,112, Rs. 46,39,425 and Rs. 13,91,857, respectively. assessee challenged said order of transferring his file from Bengaluru to Hyderabad for centralised assessment before learned single judge of this court. learned single judge of this court, who heard matter, was of view that notice under section 127 of Act issued to assessee should have been enclosed with all relevant material particulars and copies of documents relating to search and seizure alleged to have been carried out at Hyderabad on February 7, 2009. In absence of such relevant particular, assessee was handicapped to submit explanation and objections to transfer of his case from Bengaluru to Hyderabad. notice bereft of material particular. Therefore, it does not satisfy requirements of principles of natural justice. Therefore, order of transfer passed in pursuance of said notice was quashed. Aggrieved by said order, present appeal is preferred. learned counsel for Revenue assailing impugned order contends that when notice was issued under section 127 of Act to assessee, it did not plead that they want particulars of search and seizure but in contrary it entered appearance through its managing director and filed detailed statement of objections opposing transfer. It is only after considering said objection, impugned order has been passed and, therefore, impugned order passed by learned single judge on ground that principles of natural justice has been violated and there is no obligation on part of Revenue to furnish all particulars and, hence, contended that it requires to be set aside. Per contra, learned counsel for assessee submitted that in notice issued, there is no whisper about how search and seizure were conducted at Hyderabad which is in no way connected with assessee. Even in impugned order passed, no such connection is found to have been existing and unless nexus is made out, question of transferring file of assessee from one jurisdiction to another jurisdiction would not arise and, therefore, on this ground, impugned order is sustainable for reasons given by learned single judge. material on record discloses that managing director of assessee has given his statement against transfer of his file from Bengaluru to Hyderabad and he has not challenged same. On contrary, he has participated in assessment proceedings and assessment order has been framed. In so far as communication conducting search and seizure at Hyderabad in so far as assessee is concerned, it could be clearly gathered from answers given by managing director in his statements which are recorded on February 7, 2009, in form of question and answers as follows: "9. Question: Please mention when you entered in to abovementioned real estate deal with Mr. Syed M. Mehdi and also give full details. Answer: I entered into agreement with Sri Syed M. Medhi for purchasing 10 plots for rupees 1.50 crores. part of which I have already paid APP. 1.40 crores and balance Rs. 10 lakhs is yet to be paid. registration for these 10 plots is over documents are at Hyderabad with Shri Syed M. Mehdi. He shall give above documents once I paid entire amount. 10. Question: Please explain forms for abovementioned payments made by you to Shri Syed M. Mehdi. Answer: abovementioned plot registered in my name and in my wife. Out of 10 plots mentioned above roughly 2 are registered in my name and roughly 8 plots registered in my wife's name. source of payments made to Shri Syed M. Mehdi are drawing made by me from company Span Design and Development Pvt. Ltd. and partnership firm Span Centre where me and my wife are partner, entire payment has been made by way of cheque. These cheques given to Mr. Mehdi on various dates and cheques were drawn from bank account of our company Span Design and Development Pvt. Ltd. and partnership firm Span Centre and me and my wife personal accounts at Kotak Mahendra Bank, ITPL Branch, White Field, Bangalore." above answers clearly disclose that managing director of assessee has paid money for purchase of 10 plots out of which two are registered in his name and eight are registered in his wife's name and seller- Sri Syed M. Mehdi was paid money by cheques from account of assessee and partnership firm where he and his wife are partners. It is asserted that cheques given to Sri Mehdi on various dates and cheques were drawn from bank account of assessee and partnership firm and also of his and his wife's personal account at Kotak Mahendra Bank, ITPL Branch, Whitefield, Bangalore. From this answers, it is clear that 10 plots were purchased in Hyderabad, two in name of managing director and 8 in name of his wife. consideration for these 10 plots was paid to purchaser from account of assessee and from account of partnership firm and individual account of managing director and his wife. That is why it is necessary to centralise all returns in order to find out true nature of transaction-from which account, how much amount is paid? and how documents came to be registered in name of husband and his wife? managing director is fully acquainted with all these facts. It is he, who has given all these information and he has no difficulty in going to Hyderabad for being present during assessment proceedings of his, individual account and his wife's account. We do not see what difficulty he would have, if assessee's account, of which he is managing director, is also processed at same time where his individual and his wife is processed. In that view of matter, order passed by authorities transferring file of assessee to Hyderabad is just and proper and without any justification learned single judge has interfered with well considered order passed. Therefore, impugned order cannot be sustained. Hence, we pass following: Order (i) appeal is allowed. (ii) impugned order passed by learned single judge is hereby set aside and order of transfer is restored; and (iii) Parties to bear their own cost. *** Commissioner of Income-tax v. Span Design and Development (P.) Ltd