IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 21.03.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.2585 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011 Nexus Transcore Industries, Represented by its Managing Director, Mr.Ketan Bagadia, Plot No.C-70, PIPDIC Industrial Estate, Mettupalayam, Puducherry 605 009. ... Petitioner Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle I, Puducherry. ... Respondent Prayer: This petition has been filed seeking for a writ of Certiorari, to call for the records on the file of the respondent and quash the impugned assessment order dated 31.12.2010 for the assessment year 2006-2007 as illegal and without jurisdiction. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sivaraman For Respondents : Mr.J.Narayanasamy * * * * * O R D E R
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
2. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the respondent has passed the impugned order, dated 31.12.2010, under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without passing a separate speaking order on the objections raised by the petitioner, on 15.09.2010. Therefore, the impugned order of the respondent, dated 31.12.2010, is contrary to law and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, made in GKN Driveshafts (India) Limited vs. Income Tax Officer & Others ((2003 ) 259 ITR 19(SC)). Paragraph 5 of the order of the Supreme Court reads as follows:
“5. We see no jurstifiable reason to interfere with the order under challenge. However, we clarify that when a notice under Section 148 of the IT Act is issued, the proper course of action for the noticee is to file return and if he so desires, to seek reasons for issuing notices. The AO is bound to furnish reasons within a reasonable time. On receipt of reasons, the noticee is entitled to file objections to issuance of notice and the AO is bound to dispose of the same by passing a speaking order. In the instant case, as the reasons have been disclosed in these proceedings, the AO has to dispose of the objections, if filed, by passing a speaking order, before proceeding with the assessment in respect of the abovesaid five assessment years.”
3.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on instructions, had not refuted the submissions made by the learned counsel appering on behalf of the petitioner.
4. In such circumstances, this Court finds it appropriate to set aside the impugned order of the respondent, dated 31.12.2010. The respondent is directed to consider the objections raised by the petitioner, on 15.09.2010, and pass a separate speaking order, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and to proceed further, as per law.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No cost. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
cse
To
The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,
Circle I,
Puducherry
