9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (7) TMI 73X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bench of the High Court at Bombay, sitting at Panaji. By that order, the writ petition filed by the appellant was summarily dismissed. By the writ petition, the appellant challenged the validity of a notice issued to it by the first respondent under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The notice alleged that the first respondent had reason to believe that the appellant's income chargeable to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be communicated. Since, therefore, there was, in its view, no failure to perform a statutory duty, it could not call for and examine the reasons. As to the ground in relation to the previous notice, the Division Bench noted that it had not been asserted in the writ petition that the income-tax authority had made an assessment pursuant to the previous notice. It observed that the appellant had sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herefore, necessary to set aside the order of summary dismissal of the writ petition and to restore the writ petition (Writ Petition No. 356 of 1991) to the file of the High Court to be heard and disposed of on the merits. Our observations are confined to the order of summary dismissal that is impugned and should not in any way influence the decision of the court on the merits. Both the parties sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
