Nexus Transcore Industries v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle I, Puducherry

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 21.03.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Nexus Transcore Industries,Represented by its Managing Director,Mr.Ketan Bagadia,Plot No.C-70, PIPDIC Industrial Estate,Mettupalayam,Puducherry 605 009. ... Petitioner VersusThe 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 theimpugned assessment order dated 31.12.2010 for the assessment year 2004-2005 as illegal and without jurisdiction. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and thelearned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalfof the petitioner is that the respondent has passed the impugned order,dated 31.12.2010, under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, withoutpassing a separate speaking order on the objections raised by thepetitioner, on 15.09.2010. Therefore, the impugned order of therespondent, dated 31.12.2010, is contrary to law and the decision of theHon'ble Supreme Court, made in GKN Driveshafts (India) Limited vs.Income Tax Officer & Others ((2003 ) 259 ITR 19(SC)). Paragraph 5 ofthe order of the Supreme Court reads as follows: "5. We see no jurstifiable reason to interfere withthe order under challenge. However, we clarify that whena notice under Section 148 of the IT Act is issued, theproper course of action for the noticee is to file returnand if he so desires, to seek reasons for issuing notices.The AO is bound to furnish reasons within a reasonabletime. On receipt of reasons, the noticee is entitled tofile objections to issuance of notice and the AO is boundto dispose of the same by passing a speaking order. Inthe instant case, as the reasons have been disclosed inthese proceedings, the AO has to dispose of theobjections, if filed, by passing a speaking order, beforeproceeding with the assessment in respect of the abovesaidfive assessment years." 3.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, oninstructions, had not refuted the submissions made by the learnedcounsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 4. In such circumstances, this Court finds it appropriate to setaside the impugned order of the respondent, dated 31.12.2010. Therespondent is directed to consider the objections raised by thepetitioner, on 15.09.2010, and pass a separate speaking order, within aperiod of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this orderand to proceed further, as per law. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No cost. Consequently,connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ cse To The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,Circle I, Puducherry. +1cc to M/s.R.Sivaraman,Advocate Sr 20835 +1cc to Mr.J.Narayanasamy,Advocate Sr MG(CO)km/29.4. Writ Petition No.2583 of 2011andM.P.No.1 of 2011