9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (11) TMI 41X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 14-11-2005 - Judge(s) : H. L. GOKHALE., J. P. DEVADHAR. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by H.L. Gokhale J. - Heard Mr. Dastur in support of this petition. Mr. Kotangale appears for the respondents. Rule, returnable forthwith. Reply is already filed. Mr. Kontangale waives service. The petitioner herein is a public limited company engaged in the business of running a petroleum refinery at Mangalore. The petitioner has been constrained to challenge the order dated March 29, 2004 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Range 3(2), Mumbai, issuing a notice of reopening the assessment of income of the petitioner under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment done for the year 1998-99. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wer Committee. The petitioner, therefore, pressed for an ad interim order. Inasmuch as the High Power Committee was seized of the matter and the decision was taking its own time, this court passed an ad interim order on March 10, 2005 in terms of prayer clause (d) of this petition, granting an ad interim relief restraining the respondents from acting upon the said reassessment order dated February 28, 2005, which had been passed in the meanwhile after reopening the matter. Mr. Dastur, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that in view of the fact that the matter was pending before the High Power Committee, the authorities concerned were not expected to reopen the matter and pass the order in the manner in which they have p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n [1997] 224 ITR 560. That was on section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, as it then stood. Under sub-section (1)(b) of section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, it was specifically provided that notwithstanding that there has been no omission or failure on the part of the assessee, the Department has jurisdiction to reopen the matter. As far as the facts of that case are concerned, it is clearly seen that there was no dispute that the reassessment proceedings were taken within a period of four weeks. The submission of Mr. Kotangale based on this judgment that a reassessment is permissible cannot, therefore, be accepted. Mr. Kotangale submitted that an appeal is available to the petitioner to the authority concerned. In our view, when the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
