High Court Of Madras
Fuller India Ltd. vs. JCIT & ANR.
Sections 148
Asst. Year 1998-99
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.
Writ Petn. No. 13734 of 2002 & WPMP No. 17195 of 2003
12th August, 2003
Counsel Appeared
K. Ramachandran for Rajmohan, for the Petitioner : J. Narayanaswami, for the Respondent
ORDER
K. Raviraja Pandian, J. :
By consent of both the parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. Without assigning any reason whatsoever except filling up the address of the petitioner the Department has decided to reassess the assessment of the year 1998-99. This sort of issuance of the notice and keeping alive the proceedings forever without disclosing any reason has been deprecated by this Court in every case of this nature. But, in spite of that, the impugned notice has been issued which is a clear example on the part of the respondent of the non-application of mind. If the Department wants to reassess, it has to state the reason for coming to the conclusion of reassessing the already concluded assessment. Clause (2) of s. 148 of the IT Act very specifically provides that before issuing any notice under this section, the officer concerned must report his reasonings for doing so. But unfortunately, the officer, who purported to exercise the power under the provision, has not even taken least care to follow the provision, which mandates the reason to be recorded. Hence, the impugned notice, which is a classic example of non-application of mind, has to be set aside and the same is set aside. In order to save the limitation of time, the respondent-Department is given 15 days time within which a fresh notice if they are so advised can be issued from today. The writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected WPMP is closed.
[Citation : 269 ITR 365]
