INCOME-TAX OFFICER Vs. ELECTRO STEEL CASTINGS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated May 16, 1989, passed by a learned judge of this court in Civil Rule No. 3074(W) of 1977. By the said judgment and order, the learned judge allowed the writ petition and quashed the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. While passing the judgment under appeal, the learned judge noted that the said rule was made ready in the year 1979 and the matter was directed to appear in the list on different dates for hearing. Directions were given for affidavits, but, as no affidavit was filed by the Revenue, time to file the said affidavit was further extended on January 11, 1988. But, even then also, no affidavit was filed. Nor were the records produced which are normally produced in a proceeding relating to Section 148 notices. Since no materials were produced justifying the issuance of the notices, the learned judge found that the case in the writ petition that the notices were issued without any materials and without formation of opinion could not be controverted and, as such, the writ petition was allowed and the notices were quashed.

(2.) This appeal was taken up for hearing before this court on November 12, 2002, but, at that time, nobody appeared for the appellant. This court considering the order of the learned trial judge and the non-appearance of the appellant at the time when the appeal was taken up, dismissed the appeal. But, before the order could be signed by this Bench, learned counsel for the appellant mentioned for recalling the order and explained the circumstances for which he could not appear. Considering those facts the order was recalled and, thereafter, the matter was fixed for hearing afresh. Learned counsel for the Revenue also prayed for an opportunity to file affidavit in connection with the writ petition. Pursuant to such prayer, liberty was given to file the affidavit and also to produce the records by the court's order dated January 25, 2003. The matter was fixed for hearing on March 20, 2003. Thereafter, affidavits were filed, records were produced and the matter was heard before us on March 20, 2003, and also thereafter.

(3.) After the affidavits were filed, we could have remanded the matter to the learned trial judge for deciding the controversy afresh. But, since a long period of time has elapsed and both the parties prayed for a decision of the matter on the merits by the appeal court, we do so by this judgment.