TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 1029X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mar, JJ. For the Petitioner : Sri Harish V. S. For the Respondent : Sri K V Aravind, Advocate ORDER Admit. 2. Mr. K. V. Aravind, learned Counsel waives notice of admission. 3. With the consent of learned Advocates appearing for both the sides, the appeal is finally heard. 4. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 11.12.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.14671/2014 whereby the learned Single Judge for the reasons recorded in the order has directed the petitioner to approach before the Appellate Authority within two months as per the provisions of Section 146(a) of the Income Tax Act. 5. We have heard Mr.V.S.Harish, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.K ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 14.06.2007. Subsequently, on 28.03.2013, notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued for re-opening of the assessment. In response to the same, the appellant requested the respondent to treat the earlier return filed as the return filed in response to the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act. The appellant also prayed for furnishing the reasons for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act. Even when no reason for the issuance of the notice was furnished to the appellant, the Assessing Officer commenced proceedings for re-assessment of the income of the assessee/appellant for the said assessment year and issued questionnaire under Section 142(1) of the Act. 3. From the questionnaire issued to the assessee, it appears ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een made, we are of the opinion that proceedings for the re- assessment could not have been taken further on this ground alone. 7. Besides this, it is not disputed that the statement of some other person which was recorded and the appellant was asked to explain the same, was itself not furnished to the appellant-assessee. As such, besides non- furnishing of reasons for re-opening, there was also gross violation of principles of natural justice and in view of the aforesaid, we are of the opinion that writ petition against the re- assessment order dated 31.01.2014 ought to have been entertained and that dismissal of the writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy was not justified in the facts of the present case. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
