Case Law Details
Stallion Garments Vs. Asst. CIT (Madras High Court)
It is the consistent case of the petitioner that the reasons were not communicated to them, and such a specific stand has been taken in the Writ Petitions, which were filed on 23-11-2005, i.e., much after the date on which, it is stated that the assessee received the letter, dated 14-11-2005. However, this Court does not propose to dwell further into such controversy, considering the fact that the Writ Petitions are of the year 2005, and the matters are remain pending for all these years, and order of interim stay has been operating. If the petitioner had been communicated with the reason for issuance of the impugned notices, then, they would have been in a position to subject their objections and proceed with the matter in accordance with directives issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of (GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd., v. ITO) (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC).
Thus, without going into the controversy as to whether the petitioner has been communicated the reason for re-opening or not, there will be a direction to the respondent to communicate the reason for reopening for both the assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04 within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the reason for re-opening, the petitioner is directed to submit their objections within a period of 30 days therefrom. On receipt of the objections, the respondent shall consider the same and pass a speaking order on merits and in accordance with law.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT JUDGMENT / ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:-
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
usefull to me