O.M.PRAKASH, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) A notice dt. 12th Aug., 1991 under S. 148 of the IT Act, 1961 ('the Act'), Annexure 3 to the writ petition, was served on the petitioner, pursuant to which the petitioner filed return on 25th Oct., 1992. The contention of the petitioner is that there was no reason to believe for the respondent to reopen the assessment and that no copy of the reasons has been supplied to the petitioner so far. In the case of K.M. Bansal vs. CIT 1991 UPTC 1086 this court has taken the view that when a return is filed pursuant to notice under S. 148 by the petitioner, then the AO shall communicate the reasons recorded by him under S. 148(2) to the assessee, subject, of course, to the necessity of protecting his source/informant if he thinks such protection is necessary in any given case. Following the said authority, we dispose of the writ petition finally with the observations that if the petitioner makes an application for getting a copy of reasons recorded by the assessing authority to proceed under S. 148, then the assessing authority (Respondent No. 1) shall communicate the reasons recorded by him under S. 148(2) to the petitioner within five days from the date of receipt of the said application from the petitioner, who undertakes to file a copy of this order along with the application for obtaining a copy of reasons within five days from today, subject of course, to the necessity of protecting his source/informant, if he thinks such protection is necessary in this case and when reasons are communicated by the assessing authority, the petitioner may file reply him within one week from the date of communication of the reasons. Till then the proceedings pursuant to the impugned notice dt. 12th Aug., 1991. Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition, will not be completed.;