Case Law Details
Navelkar Estates Developers v CIT and ITO
High Court of Bombay
Writ Petition No. 379 of 2011S.A. Bobde and F.M. Reis, JJ
Decided on: 30 June 2011
Judgment
S.A. Bobde, J
1. Rule.
2. Rule returnable forthwith.
3. Heard by consent.
4. The main contention of Shri V. R. Tamba, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner is that the reasons have not been furnished to the Petitioner/Assessee for issuing notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the Assessee is not in a position to file objections to the issue on notice.The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner points out to the case of GKN Driveshafts(India) Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer and others (2003) 1 SCC 72) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the Assessing Officer is bound to furnish the reasons within a reasonable time so that the Assessee can file objections to issuance of notice and the Assessing Officer is bound to dispose of the same by passing a speaking order.
5. Ms. Asha Dessai, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent/Revenue states that the Revenue will furnish reasons as contemplated by the aforesaid Judgment to the Petitioner and that in fact they have already been dispatched.
6. In this view of the matter, we see no reason to entertain the matter any further. It is directed that the Petitioner shall be offered an opportunity to state his objection and the Assessing Officer shall decide the same by a speaking order in accordance with law.
7. Rule made absolute in the above terms.
