AJN 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.395 OF 2009 M/s. Sterlite Opportunities & Ventures Ltd. ... Petitioner Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Range 8(3), Mumbai & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. B.V. Jhaveri for the petitioner. Mr. Suresh Kumar for the respondents. CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 3RD MARCH, 2009. P.C.:- 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, taken up for final hearing and disposal. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by notice dated 28/3/2008 issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (for short, “the DCIT”) under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, reopening the assessment of the petitioner for the Assessment Year 2003-04. It appears that on 11/4/2008, the petitioner wrote to the DCIT requesting him to give a copy of the reasons recorded for AJN 2 reopening the assessment. The reasons dated 28/3/2008 were furnished to the petitioner. The petitioner filed its objections against reopening of the assessment on 29/12/2008. The objections were disposed of by the assessing officer by order dated 23/1/2009. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the said order also. Recorded reasons dated 28/3/2008 are also challenged. 3. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner at some length. He submitted that according to the DCIT, the reason for reopening of the assessment is that the petitioner has made investment in Hindustan Zink Limited to have controlling stake in it. According to the petitioner, it holds 46% of shareholding in Hindustan Zink Limited. In the objections, the petitioner has stated that the DCIT has not recorded any finding of fact as to how the purchase of shares of Hindustan Zink Limited can be said to have been made for holding controlling stake and not for business purposes. Without prejudice to this contention, the petitioner has also stated that 46% shareholding cannot be said to be controlling stake. A reading of the impugned order dated 23/1/2009 shows that the DCIT has not considered this objection raised by the AJN 3 petitioner. The order must reflect the consideration of objections. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the order dated 23/1/2009 needs to be set aside and the matter should be remanded to the DCIT for considering the objections of the petitioner de novo in accordance with law and on merits. Hence, the following order : 4. The impugned order dated 23/1/2009 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the DCIT for considering the objections of the petitioner afresh independently and in accordance with law. We direct the DCIT to decide the matter within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order by him. If the order is adverse to the petitioner, it shall not be implemented for a period of four weeks from the date of communication of the same to the petitioner. In the meantime, reassessment proceedings pursuant to notice dated 28/3/2008 shall stand stayed. The petition is disposed of. [SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.] ` [J.P. DEVADHAR, J.]