2002 (2) TMI 29

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sessment year 1976-77 had escaped assessment within the meaning of section 16 of the Act. By the said notice, the first respondent called upon the petitioner-company to file its return under the said Act. The petitioner-company replied to the aforesaid notice through its chartered accountant by letter dated December 24, 1982, setting out relevant facts and challenging the same on various factors and legal grounds. The petitioner-company did not receive any reply from the first respondent. The petitioner, therefore, assumed that the first respondent had accepted the contention of the petitioner and agreed either to withdraw the impugned notice dated November 23, 1982, or not to take any further steps in the proceedings pursuant thereto. O....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ner contended that the notice was issued for making enquiry. However, in spite of lapse of 14 years no material is placed on record. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, therefore, relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd. v. ITO [1965] 57 ITR 637 submitted that as there is no counter-affidavit filed, this court has to accept the allegations made in the petition and to quash the notice which is challenged in this petition. Learned counsel also relied upon the judgments of the Division Bench of this court in the case of Devji Ravji Patel v. Balasubramaniam [1994] 210 ITR 925 and in the case of Sable Waghire Trust v. S.R. Achyuta Rao [1999] 240 ITR 688 (Bom). The present petition ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nce of any material placed by the authority to disprove the challenge OF the assessee to the existence of the conditions precedent, the writ petition cannot be dismissed. In the present case, in spite of grant of repeated adjournments, no attempt was made by the respondents to file return or affidavit in reply. No steps were taken to produce the reasons warranting issuance of the notice under section 16 of the Act. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in view of the absence of any material placed by the Revenue, this petition should be allowed and the impugned notice should be quashed and set aside. Our attention is also drawn to the judgment of this court in Devji Ravji Patel v. Balasubramaniam [1994] 210 ITR 925 ....