Dismissing the appeals the Court held that cogent and credible reasons were assigned in the notices issued by the authorities as required under section 127 for transfer of the cases. Such transfer of cases had to be made on administrative exigencies and for better assessment by the Revenue and the authorities were the best judge in such matters. As far as the service of the notices was concerned, the single judge had examined in detail in his order wherein he had held that notices were sent twice. It was admitted that the first notice was served at the assessees’ address in Kerala. It was not the case that the notices were sent to the wrong address. The notices were sent at the registered address of the company in Kerala which had also been received by the assessees, a fact which had been reiterated over and again by the Revenue and had not been negated by the assessees. It was therefore sufficient compliance under rule 127 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 as the notices were sent at the registered office of the assessees’ company. Since no response was filed, notices were sent again. Unlike the first time, the second time it came with an endorsement of the postal authority that it was “unclaimed”. A presumption could be drawn that when the first time notices were received at the same address, the second notices could not remain “unclaimed” and therefore, the plea of the assessees that the second time notices were never received by them had been rightly rejected by the single judge. The only requirement of the law was that while passing an order of transfer, the reasons must be assigned. The orders of transfer of cases need not be interfered with.