Nexus Transcore Industries Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Madras High Court 21 Mar 2011 Writ Petition No. 2583 of 2011 and M.P. No. 1 of 2011 (2011) 03 MAD CK 0572
Bench: Single Bench
Result Published
Acts Referenced

Judgement Snapshot

Case Number

Writ Petition No. 2583 of 2011 and M.P. No. 1 of 2011

Hon'ble Bench

M. Jaichandren, J

Advocates

R. Sivaraman, for the Appellant; J. Narayanasamy, for the Respondent

Final Decision

Dismissed

Acts Referred

Income Tax Act, 1961 — Section 147, 148

Judgement Text

Translate:

@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER

M. Jaichandren, J.@mdashHeard 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, u/s 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) Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer and Others, . Paragraph 5 of the order of the Supreme Court reads as

follows:

5. We see no justifiable reason to interfere with the order under challenge. However, we clarify that when a notice u/s 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

appearing 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.

From The Blog
Supreme Court Halts GST Assessment on Joint Development Deals
Oct
28
2025

Story

Supreme Court Halts GST Assessment on Joint Development Deals
Read More
Supreme Court Explains Demurrer Law in Neelkanth Realty Case
Oct
28
2025

Story

Supreme Court Explains Demurrer Law in Neelkanth Realty Case
Read More