The assessee Trust is registered under the jurisdiction of Commissioner of Income tax Faridabad. There was search action in the case of Aggarwal Vidya Prachrani Sabha, hence the matter is centralized at Gurgaon  by passing an order under section  127 of the Act. The Block assessment was completed from the  Asst years 2014-15 to 2020-21. PCIT (Central) Gurgaon passed an order cancelling the registration by passing an order under section 12AB (4) of the  Act.   On appeal the Tribunal held that order passed under sub-cl. (a) to sub-s. (2) of S.  127 only referred to transfer of jurisdiction of ‘AO’ subordinate to CIT(E), Chandigarh to Dy. CIT, Central Circle-2, Faridabad as AO and not original jurisdiction of CIT(E), Chandigarh with regard to the subject matter as stands vested by order of CBDT dt. 22nd Oct., 2014. This delegation of powers by CIT(E), Chandigarh could have been qua officers subordinate to the CIT(E) only and he had no power to pass an order under S. 127(2) (b) to transfer powers vested by the Board to any other tax authority. Notification dt. 22nd Oct., 2014 does not mention specifically that the powers which can be exercised by the Principal CIT under S. 12AB can be transferred to other authorities. Accordingly while passing the order under S. 127, the CIT(E), Chandigarh could have transferred his powers under S. 12AB to any other authority. Term ‘case’ as defined in Explanation to S. 127 refers to assessment initiated as a consequence of search or consequential proceedings to such assessments only and cannot be extended to special powers of CIT(E) Principal CIT at Gurgaon did not have the power to cancel the registration of the assessee trust under S. 12AB(4) on the basis of the order under S. 127. Principal CIT has  initiated action under s. 12AB(4) on the basis of a proposal conveyed through a letter dt. 23rd Aug., 2022. Since the assessment by the said AO was completed in September, 2021, i.e., before the letter dt. 23rd Aug., 2022, there was no occasion for the concerned AO to invoke reference powers under second proviso to sub-s. (3) of s. 143.  The ‘reference’ by the jurisdictional AO was to be made not to the Principal CIT or CIT, to whom this AO was subordinate but one authorised by the Board for the purpose of S. 12AB. Assumption of jurisdiction for cancellation of registration under S. 12AB(4) by virtue of aforesaid transfer of jurisdiction order under S. 127 is not valid. The Principal CIT has not mentioned as to which amongst the various specified violations mentioned in Explanation to sub-s. (4) of S. 12AB were attracted so as to show-cause the assessee. Accordingly the order passed by Principal CIT, Gurgaon, without jurisdiction in the context of territorial powers apart from the fact that it is not in accordance with law, hence quashed.