Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 1992
  6. /
  7. January

Herbs (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of ...

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|21 January, 1992

JUDGMENT / ORDER

JUDGMENT A.N. Verma, J.
1. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondent, we dispose of this petition finally.
2. A notice dated September 13, 1991, was served on the petitioner by the respondent under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Within one month of the service of the notice, according to a supplementary affidavit, the petitioner filed its return a true copy of which has been annexed to the supplementary affidavit.
3. By a letter dated November 15, 1991, the petitioner asked the respondent to disclose the reasons recorded for reopening of the case. The respondent refused to disclose the reasons, vide its letter dated November 10, 1991, stating that the only requirement under law was that the reasons should be recorded before issuing the notice under Section 148 of the Act, and that provision having been complied with by recording the reasons, the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, who has issued the notice was not obliged to disclose the reasons.
4. The stand taken by the respondent is clearly contrary to the opinion expressed by this court in similar circumstances in Writ Petition No. 165 of 1991 (K. M. Bansal v. CIT [1992] 195 ITR 247), disposed of by the judgment and order of this court dated March 27, 1991. In this judgment, this court has expressed the opinion that, while it is not open to the assessee to straightaway call upon the Assessing Officer to disclose or indicate the reasons on the basis of which the notice was issued under Section 148(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer is obliged to disclose the reasons once the proceedings assume quasi-judicial character.
5. In the present case, it is not disputed that the petitioner has already submitted its return in response to the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act. That being so, the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax is clearly obliged to disclose and communicate to the petitioner the reasons recorded by him under Section 148(2) of the Income-tax Act. The respondent will, therefore, disclose the reasons recorded to the petitioner within a month from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. The assessment may, thereafter, be completed after giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard in the matter.
6. With these directions, the petition is disposed of finally.
7. A certified copy of this order may be given to learned counsel for the petitioner on payment of usual charges by tomorrow.
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Herbs (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of ...

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
21 January, 1992
Judges
  • A Verma
  • M Katju