On Perusal Of Order Passed By The v. P.n.bansal Andanother, Reported At 208 Itr 471

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Prashanth Projects Ltd....Appellant The Commissioner of Income Tax. ...Respondent. --- Mr.Murlidharan i/b. Rajesh Shah & Co., for Appellant.Mr.J.S.Saluja, for Respondent. CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED: 16[th] October,2008. P.C.:- 1.The appeal is admitted on the followingquestion of law:- “(1) Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case and in law, it ispermissible for the Assessing Officer toproceed with the reassessment proceedings without giving the Appellant a copy of thereasons recorded for reopening and withoutgiving the Appellant an opportunity to stateits objections to the reassessment?” 2.By consent of parties, the appeal is heardfinally. The basic question raised in this appeal is“whether the notice issued under section 148 of theIncome Tax Act 1961 can be sustained in the absenceof recording reasons for reopening the assessment ascontemplated under section 148(2) of the Income TaxAct,1961. 3.On perusal of order passed by the authorities, it is seen that the assessing officerhad not recorded reasons for reopening the assessmentand the Tribunal has based its finding on the mereassumption that the assessee was orally told thereasons for reopening the assessment. Under section148(2) of the Income Tax Act,1961 it is mandatory forthe assessing officer to record reasons beforeissuing notice for reopening the assessment. We hadadjourned this matter on the last occasion to enablethe Counsel appearing for the appellant to produce the file if any, containing the reasons recorded forreopening the assessment. Even today the Counselappearing for appellant is unable to produce any filecontaining reasons for reopening the assessment. 4.In this view of the matter, in the absenceof recording reasons for reopening the assessment,the notice issued under section 148(2) of the IncomeTax Act 1961 would be bad-in-law. This Court hastaken a similar view in the case “Morarjee GoculdasSpinning and Weaving Co.Ltd. vs P.N.Bansal andanother, reported at 208 ITR 471. 4.In this view of the matter, the appeal isallowed and the reassessment order is held to be badin law. The question raised in this appeal isanswered accordingly. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) 4 (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)