Delhi High Court
S. Ujjal Singh vs The Income Tax Officer on 28 July, 2005
Author: B D Ahmed
Bench: T Thakur, B D Ahmed
JUDGMENT
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.
CM. No. 6227/2005 in WP(C)549/1986
1. Heard. For the reasons stated in the application as well as the submissions made by the learned counsel, the delay is condoned.
2. The application is allowed and disposed of.
CM. NO. 6222/2005
3. This is an application for substitution of legal heirs in place of the deceased petitioner who is said to have died on 09.12.90. The applicants are the widow and son and daughter of the deceased petitioner.
4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants that soon after the death of the petitioner, they had filed an amended memo of parties though disclosing only the widow as the LR of the deceased petitioner. However, they had not filed a formal application for substitution of the LRs which is being done now. After hearing the counsel for the parties, we see no reason as to why the present applicants be not substituted in place of the original petitioner (since deceased). Accordingly, this application is allowed. Therefore, amended memo of parties be filed within two days.
WP(C) 549/1986
5. This petition had been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner contended that no reasons existed for the issuance of the impugned notice under section 148 and no such reasons have been provided to the petitioner.
6. This petition was filed in 1986. In the intervening period of time, the Supreme Court has given clear directions with regard to the procedure to be followed whenever a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act is to be issued. The position has been made clear in the decision of the Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v Income Tax Officer and Others 259 ITR 19. The relevant portion of the Supreme Court decision reads as under:
"However, we clarify that when a notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act is issued, the proper course of action for the noticee is to file a return and if he so desires, to seek reasons for issuing notices. The Assessing Officer is bound to furish reasons within a reasonable time. On receipt of reasons, the noticee is entitled to file objections to issuance of notice and the Assessing Officer 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 Assessing Officer has to dispose of the objections, if filed, by passing a speaking order, before proceeding with the assessment in respect of the above said five assessment years."
7. In view of the clear directions given by the Supreme Court, it is open to the noticee to file a return and if he so desires to seek reasons for the issuance of the notice. The Assessing Officer is thereupon duty-bound to furnish the reasons within a reasonable time. On receipt of reasons, the noticee is entitled to file objections to the issuance of the notice and, thereafter, the Assessing Officer is bound to dispose of the same by passing a speaking order before proceeding with the assessment. I this case, it appears that after the impugned notice was issued, the petitioner had, in fact, filed the return under protest and had also demanded reasons. However, no reasons have been disclosed or supplied to the petitioner till date. It is now directed that the Assessing Officer shall furnish the reasons within three months upon which the procedure indicated above shall be followed. A copy of the writ petition be supplied to Mr Jolly who appears on behalf of the respondent.
8. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
