Shri Y v. Nutan D. Sardessai, Jj

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 27 OF 2016 MINESCAPE MINERALS PVT LTD., REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR SHRI DINAR TARCAR AND ANR., VersusDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE. ... Petitioners ... Respondent Shri Devidas J. Pangam, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Y. V. Raviraj, Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent. -Coram:F. M. REIS & NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, JJ. -Date:20th February, 2017 P.C. Heard Shri D. J. Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for thepetitioners and Shri Y. V. Raviraj, learned Senior StandingCounsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The challenge in the above petition is for a refusal to handover the material in possession of the respondent which ledto issuing a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Actshowing the intention to reopen the earlier assessment of thepetitioners. 3. Shri Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has pointed out that the petitioners have already filed returnspursuant to the said notice and sought for the reasons whichhave been supplied by the respondent/revenue. The learned Counsel, however, points out that the material which forms thebasis of the show cause notice have not been furnished to thepetitioner which forced the petitioners to file the above petitionto challenge such order. The learned Counsel as such points outthat the petitioners are entitle for all the material and thedocuments in possession of the respondent to enable them to filea reply to the show cause notice. Shri Pangam, learned Counselalso points out that with regard to the same Assessment inrespect of the same proceedings initiated against the Director ofthe Petitioners' Company, information with regard to orders inthe order-sheet and the some correspondence exchanged betweenthe Assessee and the Assessing Officer were furnished to theDirector of the petitioners. 4. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for therespondent submits that in terms of the judgment of Apex Court in (2003)259 ITR 19 in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd.v. ITO, the respondent is only bound to give reasons to thepetitioners/assessee which have already been furnished to thepetitioners. It is further pointed out that the other material soughtby the petitioners is confidential information obtained and cannotbe disclosed at this stage to the petitioners. The learned Counsel,however, points out upon instructions, that similar order-sheetsand the correspondence delivered to the Director of the Companyas mentioned at pages 7 to 10 annexed to the letter dated21.7.2014 and any other similar correspondence between the Assessing Officer and the Petitioners shall be furnished withinone week from today. 5. Upon hearing the learned Counsel, we find that theinterference of this Court at this stage with regard to furnishingof documents sought by the petitioners would not be justified.But, however, the statement of the learned Counsel appearing forthe respondent that similar documents which were furnished tothe Director of the petitioner's Company would be furnished tothe petitioners as referred in the documents at pages 7 to 10annexed to the letter dated 21.7.2014 and other similarcorrespondence between the Assessing Officer and thepetitioners in respect of the subject Assessment Year would befurnished within one week, stands accepted. 6. In such circumstances, We find that the petitioners are notentitled for any further relief at this stage. Accepting thestatement of the learned Counsel upon instructions, we dispose off the above petition. Liberty to the petitioners to file theirobjections to the show cause notice within two weeks thereafter. vn NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, J. F. M. REIS, J.