1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.582 OF 2005 Prashanth Projects Ltd. ...Appellant vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax. ...Respondent. --- Mr.Murlidharan i/b. Rajesh Shah & Co., for Appellant. Mr.J.S.Saluja, for Respondent. CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED: 16th October,2008. P.C.:- 1. The appeal is admitted on the following question of law:- “(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, it is permissible for the Assessing Officer to proceed with the reassessment proceedings 2 without giving the Appellant a copy of the reasons recorded for reopening and without giving the Appellant an opportunity to state its objections to the reassessment?” 2. By consent of parties, the appeal is heard finally. The basic question raised in this appeal is “whether the notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961 can be sustained in the absence of recording reasons for reopening the assessment as contemplated under section 148(2) of the Income Tax Act,1961. 3. On perusal of order passed by the authorities, it is seen that the assessing officer had not recorded reasons for reopening the assessment and the Tribunal has based its finding on the mere assumption that the assessee was orally told the reasons for reopening the assessment. Under section 148(2) of the Income Tax Act,1961 it is mandatory for the assessing officer to record reasons before issuing notice for reopening the assessment. We had adjourned this matter on the last occasion to enable the Counsel appearing for the appellant to produce 3 the file if any, containing the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment. Even today the Counsel appearing for appellant is unable to produce any file containing reasons for reopening the assessment. 4. In this view of the matter, in the absence of recording reasons for reopening the assessment, the notice issued under section 148(2) of the Income Tax Act 1961 would be bad-in-law. This Court has taken a similar view in the case “Morarjee Goculdas Spinning and Weaving Co.Ltd. vs P.N.Bansal and another, reported at 208 ITR 471. 4. In this view of the matter, the appeal is allowed and the reassessment order is held to be bad in law. The question raised in this appeal is answered accordingly. No order as to cots. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) 4 (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)