9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (9) TMI 123X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and AO is bound to dispose of the same by passing a speaking order. The whole idea in laying down the law in the abovereferred judgment of the apex court is to give an opportunity to the assessee to know as to what is the decision on his objections, which decision has also to be arrived at after giving an opportunity to the assessee. In the present case, the assessee has been denied this opportunity. - The orders challenged in the present matter are clearly against the law laid down by the apex court and, therefore, the exercise of writ jurisdiction is called for. That being so, we allow all these petitions and quash and set aside the orders of assessment passed in all these four petitions. - - - - - Dated:- 25-9-2006 - Judge(s) : H. L. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ters dated March 31, 2005, and April 8, 2005. Instead a notice under section 143(2) was issued on July 29, 2005. The petitioners again requested for the reasons on August 17, 2005, in response to which another notice under section 143(2) was served on December 21, 2005. Again the petitioners sought reasons by letter dated December 30, 2005, and once again a notice under section 143(2) was served on February 21, 2006. Thus, the first respondent though aware of the fact that the petitioners were seeking reasons for reopening the assessment has not supplied the reasons. This went on until March 21, 2006, when practically at the end of the assessment year the reasons were furnished. The petitioner filed their objections on March 23, '2006, anq ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s this assessment year is concerned, he adopted this course, viz., to pass a common order on the objections and assessment in the first matter, not to pass any order on the objections in the fourth matter and to pass a delayed order on the objections in the second and third matters. What has further happened is that the petitioners have chosen to file appeals to the Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals). They have been filed on 24th April, 2006. Mr. Chatterji, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, therefore, submits that when the petitioners have availed of the remedy under the statute, this court ought not to interfere assuming that there was an error on the part of the officer concerned. We have noted the submissions of both counsel. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment passed in all these four petitions. Inasmuch as the assessment orders are set aside, the appeals filed by the petitioners no longer require to be prosecuted. The same will stand disposed of. Now that the impugned orders are set aside, the first respondent, after hearing the petitioners, will pass separate speaking orders on the objections which the petitioners have filed. We further add that in the event the objections are rejected, the assessment order will not be passed for a period of four weeks thereafter. All contentions of both the parties are kept open. We further clarify that 10 this order does not mean any reflection on the impugned orders on the merits. ule made absolute in terms of this order with no order as to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
