2005 (2) TMI 49

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....961. The petitioner- M/s. Karnataka Golf Association had approached this court earlier questioning the legality of the notices issued under section 148 proposing reopening of the assessments for the years 1996-97 to 2001-02 as per notices dated January 9, 2003, by filing Writ Petitions Nos. 8446-51 of 2003. The principal ground of challenge was that the notices by themselves did not disclose as to under what circumstances the reopening was proposed; that the assessee was in the dark as to why proposition notice was issued at all; that the assessee was entitled to seek from the respondents the reasons for such reopening and notwithstanding the petitioner-assessee having sought for furnishing of such reasons for reopening, the responden....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....convincing reasons as to why the objections that had been put forth by the petitioner should be brushed aside; that the respondents cannot assume jurisdiction, without indicating in the orders as to how the objections put forth by the petitioner are not tenable, this is an order which is required to be quashed along with the notices issued under section 148 for reopening the assessments. Learned senior counsel submits that the respondents are required to follow the procedure of giving the reasons for reopening the assessments; that the assessee should be enabled to file its reply or objections to such reasons and then only can proceed further in accordance with the procedure and directions issued by the Supreme Court in the case of GKN D....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....19 and purporting to follow the said decisions and commends for an acceptance of the view taken by these two High Courts not only to examine the legality of the order dated September 27, 2004, but also for issue of a writ by allowing these writ petitions. Sri E. R. Indrakumar, learned senior standing counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, counters the submissions by pointing out that the petitioner had approached this court in the earlier round; that this court had issued directions to the respondents to furnish reasons; that in compliance with such directions, the reasons, in fact, were furnished; that the petitioner was also enabled to file his objections; those objections have been considered elaborately by the conc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t of proposition for reopening and in furnishing its stand or information. The decision of the Supreme Court does not indicate that the dealing with the objections raised by the assessee for reopening on the disclosure of reasons in itself could form an independent proceeding which should again be tested before the High Court or elsewhere. However, what is required is that while dealing with such objections, the order to be passed by the competent officer should be a reasoned order in the sense that it should disclose as to in what manner the objections have been dealt with by the concerned officer as in the event of the ensuing assessment order being made the subject-matter of appeal or being taken up before the higher forum, the order sho....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rovided to an assessee to enable the assessee to come out with its explanation and also to point out any such anomalies or inconsistencies which might have been noticed in the reasons assigned for reopening. That perhaps was necessitated because of the manner in which the very proposition notice issued under section 148 is couched. The proposition notice does not disclose anything except for saying that the officer is of the opinion that certain income has escaped assessment and is required to be brought to tax. Nothing else is indicated in this notice. Perhaps a little more transparency on the part of the Revenue and a little more information could have avoided all unnecessary litigation. Unfortunately, it is not our strong point to learn ....