KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA,J. - (1.) BY this application the petitioner company has impugned a notice under Section 263 of the Income -tax Act, 1961. By this notice the Commissioner wanted to exercise his jurisdiction under Section 263 of the said Act suo motu having felt that the order of assessment particularly deduction for investment allowance by the Assessing Officer is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue for the assessment years of 1980 -81 to 1983 -84. Ordinarily this sort of notice cannot be interfered with by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction. At the ad interim stage, this Court did not grant stay of operation of the aforesaid impugned notice and asked the Commissioner to complete hearing of the matter but effect to the final order was not be given without the leave of the court.
(2.) ON August 23, 2005, the matter was taken up for hearing. I passed an order directing the parties to supply information relating to the state of affairs pursuant to the impugned notice. On the date of hearing it was informed that hearing was taken but no order has been passed. By my earlier order I also directed to produce the final order passed, if any. The learned Counsel for the Revenue submits that he has received information that final order has been passed but he is unable to produce the same. At the ad interim stage there was no material, nor any explanation of the Revenue as to why such notice was issued, or it was not possible at that stage to pass any order granting stay by simple reading of the notice and the petition itself.
(3.) AS the final order has not been passed and now the court has got all the materials, viz., the version of the Revenue as to why jurisdiction under Section 263 was exercised, therefore, the court can decide it finally.;