ORDER SHEET WP No. 525 of 2017 IN HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE TINPLATE COMPANY OF INDIA LIMITED Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), KOL. & ORS. BEFORE: Hon'ble JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK Date : 6th September, 2017. Appearance: Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Nilanjana Banerjee Pal, Adv. For petitioner. Mr. P.K. Drolia, Adv. For respondents. Court : assessment order dated July 31, 2017 is under challenge in present writ petition. Learned Senior Advocate for petitioner submits that, petitioner received notice dated March 31, 2017 under Section 147 read with Section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 for reopening of assessment year 2010-2011 in respect of petitioner. He submits that, date of hearing was fixed on May 29, 2017. petitioner came across notice of authorities transferring concerned officer with effect from May 31, 2017. Consequently, petitioner took liberty of not filing reply to notice on May 29, 2017. Rather application dated May 26, 2017 was made seeking adjournment 2 of date of hearing for reasons and filing of objections with regard thereto. On July 26, 2017, petitioner filed objection with regard to reasons for proposed reopening of accounts. petitioner did not hear anything from concerned officer in spite of repeated enquiries with regard thereto. Subsequently, petitioner came to learn of impugned order dated July 31, 2017 by which order of assessment has been made under Sections 147/143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961. He submits that, assessing officer ought not to have passed order of assessment without considering objections raised on July 26, 2017 by petitioner. In such circumstances, he submits that, impugned order stands vitiated by breach of principles of natural justice, as petitioner was not afforded reasonable opportunity of hearing at stage of consideration of objection to reasons for reopening as well as assessment year. Moreover, Assessing Officer ought not to have passed combined order as done in present case. objections raised by petitioner to reasons given ought to have dealt with by Assessing Officer. Thereafter, Assessing Officer should have passed order of assessment. revenue is represented. Learned Advocate for revenue submits that, petitioner was served with notice dated March 31, 2017 proposing to reopen assessment for assessment year 2010-2011. notice under Sections 143(2) and 142(1) was also issued and served upon assessee. It is only thereafter that Assessing Officer proceeded to consider and dispose of objections to 3 reopening as also assessment. He draws attention of Court to recording of impugned order and submits that, nobody of petitioner appeared pursuant to notice under Section 142(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961. I have considered rival contentions of parties and materials made available on record. By notice dated March 31, 2017, authorities proposed to reopen assessment for assessment year 2010-2011 in respect of petitioner. authorities provided reasons for doing so to petitioner. petitioner initially applied for adjournment on May 26, 2017 for date of hearing fixed on May 29, 2017. No hearing took place on May 29, 2017. petitioner relies upon transfer order of Assessing Officer which speaks transfer from May 31, 2017. Be that as it may, it appears that, petitioner filed its objections to reasons for reopening assessment on July 26, 2017. impugned order is dated July 31, 2017. impugned order does not return any finding with regard to objection raised by petitioner. It is incumbent upon authority to consider and decide objection raised by petitioner in respect of reasons given for reopening assessment under Section 147(2) read with Section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961. In instant case, impugned order not having dealt with objections raised, Assessing Officer ought not to have proceeded further and passed order of assessment. assessee is entitled to know reasons for invocation of Section 147 read with Section 4 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 and fate of objections raised with regard thereto. fate of objections in present case has not been made known to petitioner by speaking order. In such circumstances, in my view, interest of justice would be subserved by setting aside impugned order dated July 31, 2017 and requesting Assessing Officer to dispose of objections raised by petitioner on July 26, 2017 to reasons for invoking Section 147 read with Section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 as expeditiously as possible and preferably within period of two weeks from date of communication of this order to him as prayed for on behalf of Department. Needless to say, Assessing Officer well adhere to principles of natural justice while dealing with and disposing of reasons and objections raised. Assessing Officer will communicate his reasoned order to petitioner forthwith thereafter. He will, thereafter, be at liberty to undertake assessment under Sections 143(2) and 142(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961, in event, he decides not to drop proceedings. rival contentions raised by parties are kept open to be decided before appropriate forum. WP No. 525 of 2017 is disposed of. No order as to costs. (DEBANGSU BASAK, J.) snn. Tinplate Company of India Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-3(1), Kol. Or