Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2012 (12) TMI 784

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... all the Supreme Court opined was about the necessity of providing reasons for issuance of notice under Section 147, if the same are sought, to afford a reasonable and fair opportunity to the assessee to file his objections, and dispose of the same by a speaking order. The rest has been left to the Court's concern to be dealt within individual cases. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that even the question whether the petitioner was afforded a reasonable opportunity could be gone into by the CIT( Appeals) before whom the appeal is pending. It is open to the assessee to urge the question of denial of opportunity along with the other issues on merits. All rights and contentions are expressly reserved. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... appeal was filed without prejudice to the writ petitioner's rights. Ld. counsel for the parties relied upon the basic ruling of the Supreme Court in G.K.N. Driveshafts (India) Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer Ors., (2003) 259 ITR 19(SC) where the Supreme Court held as under : However, we clarify that when a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act is issued, the proper course of action for the noticee is to file return and if he so desires, to seek reasons for issuing notices. The assessing officer is bound to furnish reasons within a reasonable time. On receipt of reasons, the noticee is entitled to file objections to issuance of notice and the assessing officer is bound to dispose of the same by passing a speaking order. In the ins .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... intainable to challenge invocation of proceedings for re-assessment even though it was also open to the assessed to challenge the same before the Assessing Officer during assessment as also challenge the same before the appellate authorities after the re-assessment proceedings were completed. This well settled position of law has held the field since 1961 and, as indicated by the Supreme Court itself in the case of Whirlpool Corporation (1998) 8 SCC 1, although much water has flown under the bridge, there has been no corrosive effect on this position of law. The decision in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC) also gives an indication that the requirement of passing the speaking order would provide an opportunity to the assess .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... its of the reassessment proceedings and that the court would be engaged in the futile exercise of driving him to the appellate remedy. This Court has considered the contention. As far as the decision in Techspan India (P) Ltd. (supra) is concerned this Court notices that the extract relied upon by the assessee in this case is in no way exclusive because it is a separate order. In his separate order, even while concurring with the decision, Justice Thakur sounded a note of caution and relied upon several other decisions. He observed:- The power of the High Court to issue prerogative writs under Article 226, is untrammeled by any ordinary piece of legislation, whether enacted by the Parliament or a State Legislature. Income Tax Act, 1961, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... that of another case, the court will have to examine the matter each time its jurisdiction is invoked by a litigant. This is particularly so in cases where the assessees challenge, notices issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, proposing to reopen concluded assessments, on the ground that income that was taxable has escaped assessment for a given year or years. Just because the court has interfered in one case may not in such cases, be a reason enough to interfere in every case; nor can the colour of facts be matched between two cases to show that interference in one must necessarily justify interference in the other. 5. This Court is conscious of the fact that the Supreme Court's ruling in GKN Driveshafts (supra) was designed .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates