G. Sivarajan, J.:— The petitioners in all these cases are sister concerns. The assessment of all these concerns for the assessment years 1996-97 to 2001-02 under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”), were completed. While accepting the returns processed under section 143(1) of the Act, no proceedings were initiated as contemplated under section 143(2) of the Act. However, in March, 2003, the petitioners have been served with notices under section 148 of the Income-tax Act for reopening the assessment for the years 1996-97 to 2001-02. The Assessing Officer initially did not furnish the reasons recorded in the assessment records for reopening the assessments already completed though a request was made by the petitioner in that behalf. The petitioners initially sent a communication stating that the original returns filed must be taken as returns under section 148 of the Act. The assessing authority was of the view that the petitioners have to file returns pursuant to the section 148 notices and subsequently the petitioners filed returns as required in the notices issued under section 148 of the said Act. The petitioners, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in G.K.N Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO, [2003] 259 ITR 19, again requested the Assessing Officer for furnishing the reasons for the issuance of notice under section 148 of the said Act. Pursuant to the said request, the Assessing Officer, it is stated, has furnished the reasons for issuing the notice. The petitioners have extracted the said reasons in page Nos. 11 and 12 of W.P (C) No. 31976 of 2003.
2. Sri V. Ramachandran, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that from the reasons furnished by the Assessing Officer it is very clear that there is absolutely no material available with the officer to form an opinion that there is escapement of income from assessment and for issuing the notices. Senior counsel further submits that the attempt of the officer is only to have a roving enquiry to find out as to whether there is any escapement of income which is not permissible under section 147 of the Act. Senior counsel submitted that the notices under section 148 are issued without jurisdiction.
3. Senior counsel also submitted that the petitioners are entitled to know the reasons for the reopening and to file objections. Senior counsel also pointed out that it is open to the petitioners to challenge the reasons recorded in the proceedings under article 226 of the Constitution of India. Senior counsel, in support, relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court including the latest decision in G.K.N Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO, [2003] 259 ITR 19.
4. I have also heard Sri P.K.R Menon, Senior Counsel (Government of India) Taxes, appearing for the respondent. The senior counsel also took me to the decision of the Supreme Court in GKN's case, [2003] 259 ITR 19 and submitted that the Supreme Court in the said decision had stated the procedure to be adopted in such cases and that the parties have to adopt the said procedure. The Supreme Court in G.K.N Driveshafts (India) Ltd.'s case, [2003] 259 ITR 19 observed in a similar situation as follows (page 20):
“We see no justifiable reason to interfere with the order under challenge. 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 furnish 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.”
5. In the light of the above decision, now that the assessing authority has furnished the reasons for reopening the assessment which is extracted in pages Nos. 11 and 12 of the writ petitions, it is for the petitioners to file objections to the same. If the petitioners file objection to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer for issuance of notices under section 148 of the Act within three weeks from today, the Assessing Officer will consider the said objection and pass a speaking order as held by the Supreme Court in the decision supra. The Assessing Officer will do this before proceeding with the assessment pursuant to the returns filed by the petitioners and communicate the decision to the petitioners immediately thereafter.
6. These writ petitions are disposed of as above.