2007 (11) TMI 288

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ions
M. Y. EQBAL and D. P. SINGH JJ. B. Poddar, A. K. Kashyap, S. Pandey, V. Pandey and P. Poddar for the petitioner. K. K Jhunjhunwala for the respondent. JUDGMENT M. Y. EQBAL J.- In this writ application the petitioner has challenged the notices dated February 5, 2007, and April 16, 2007, issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-3, Ranchi, purported to have been issued under section 148 and section 142(1), respectively, of the Income-tax Act, 1961, calling upon the petitioner-assessee for filing return. 2. The petitioner is a limited company carrying on the business of construction of dam canal, railways, roads, etc. In September, 2003, the petitioner-assessee filed return for the year 2003-04. The petitioner's c .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... assessee and observation made by the Commissioner in his letter dated January 10, 2007, are based upon the same materials which were available at the time of original assessment and the same is not based upon any new materials. Learned counsel further submitted that the Assessing Officer while issuing notice has not recorded satisfaction of the escapement of income as required under section 147 of the Act but he acted only on the basis of the observation made by the Commissioner of Income-tax. 4. The respondents in their counter-affidavit have stated, inter alia, that after the impugned notices were issued the petitioner-assessee was supplied reasons for issuance of notice but no objection was filed before the Assessing Officer rather the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ade to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO [2003] 259 ITR 19. Their Lordships observed as under (page 20): "By the order under challenge, a Division Bench of the High Court at Delhi (see [2002] 257 1TR 702) dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the validity of notices issued under sections 148 and 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The High Court took the view that the appellant could have taken all the objections in its reply to the notices and that, at that stage, the writ petition was premature. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed on January 31, 2002. Aggrieved by that order, the appellant, is in appeal before us. Mr. M. L. Verma, learned senior counsel .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X