2006 (9) TMI 123

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sed on the judgment of the apex court in the case of CKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO reported in [2003] 259 ITR 19. The law laid down by the apex court in this judgment is that when a notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act is issued, the noticee is expected to file the return and if he so desires he may seek reasons for issuing the notice. The apex court has laid down that on the assessee seeking such reason, "the Assessing Officer is bound to furnish the reasons within a reasonable time". Thereafter, the apex court has added that on receipt of reasons, the noticee is entitled to file objections and the Assessing Officer is bound to dispose of the same by passing a speaking order. In the first matter, i.e., Writ Petition No. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....titioners filed their objections on September 9, 2005. In Writ Petitions Nos. 2235 and 2236 of 2006 what we find that similarly a common order of assessment and decision on the objections is passed whereas in the fourth matter, i.e., Writ Petition No. 2237 of 2006 straightway the assessment order is passed but no decision is given on the objections filed by the petitioners. We may add at this stage that in the earlier two assessment years concerning this very petitioner, i.e., the assessment years 1999-2000 and 2000-01 similar developments had taken place and there the Revenue was fair enough to accept that the assessment order be set aside and the order was sought in terms of minutes whereby the assessment orders were set aside and the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....which decision has also to be arrived at after giving an opportunity to the assessee. In the present case, the assessee has been denied this opportunity. Not only that but in the first three writ petitions what we find is that a common order has been passed on the objections as well as for the reassessment. In the fourth matter, the assessment order does not disclose any decision on the objections at all and undoubtedly no such decision has been given separately on the objections. Having noted this scenario, in our view the proper course will be to interfere with the assessment orders passed in all four matters by the concerned officer. We are aware that when an alternative remedy is resorted to, the writ jurisdiction is not to be exerci....