2004 (2) TMI 44

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....6-97 to 2000-01. The assessment orders were passed by the Assessing Officer allowing refund in each assessment year of a substantial amount. The petitioner accordingly from time to time claimed refund in view of the aforesaid orders. Instead of refunding the above amount the impugned notices for each year have been issued on December 18, 2002, and the impugned orders were passed, whereby and whereunder the respondents want to reassess. Pursuant to the said notice and orders the petitioner did not submit separate returns however, reiterated that the earlier returns should be treated to be the returns for reassessment. The Revenue thereafter issued several notices under section 142 of the said Act and passed order directing the petitioner to ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....investments has escaped assessment. The orders containing reasons to believe in relation to the aforesaid assessment years are same. Dr. Pal, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, contends that the basis of formation of belief has no legal support, as the judgment relied on by the Assessing Officer reported in Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT (Addl.) [1996] 218 ITR 438 (SC) has been overruled by a subsequent decision of a larger Bench of the Supreme Court reported in CIT v. Karnataka State Co-operative Apex Bank [2001] 251 ITR 194 by which it is held amongst others that the above income is deducted under section 80P of the said Act. According to him if the basis is unacceptable under the law there is no materia....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ole motive of the petitioner, which is anything but honest, is to stall the lawful proceedings commenced in exercise of lawful jurisdiction of the authority concerned. The petitioner after accepting the order under section 142, sub-section (2A), of the said Act for special audit challenged the same in the writ jurisdiction by filing previous writ petition and this time almost after two years from the date of receipt of the impugned notice they have come to challenge the same questioning the correctness of reasons. This unexplained delay is a great factor for not entertaining this application in writ jurisdiction. If any adverse order is passed it will be open for the writ petitioner to challenge before the appropriate appellate forum. There....