SOMANI BRORS Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner challenges the revised assessment orders passed under section 19 of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981, as per annexures 6, 6/1 and 6/2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that when the notice was issued for reopening of the assessment, the basis shown was a report of the audit objection. Except that no other material was brought to the notice of the assessee. The assessee objected to the reopening, inter alia, stating that the audit objection cannot be the basis for reopening the assessment. It is also pointed out that inasmuch as the jurisdiction was challenged, the petitioner did not raise any objection on merits. While the petitioner was expecting a decision on the jurisdiction, the petitioner was served with the demand notice (annexure 5 series) and thereafter it is stated that the revised orders of assessment as per annexure 6 series were applied for and obtained by the petitioner.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner, relying on a Full Bench decision as reported in [1984] 56 STC 273 (Pat.) (Bhimraj Madanlal v. State of Bihar) as also a judgment of the Supreme Court in [1979] 119 ITR 996 (Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society v. Commissioner of Income-tax) contends that without independently applying the mind, the assessing officer has simply followed and applied the audit objection to pass the impugned assessment orders. Therefore, the same cannot be sustained. He also objects to the very initiation of the revision of the assessment under section 19.

(3.) THIS writ application is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Writ petition allowed.