JAYANTA KUMAR BISWAS,J. - (1.) THE petitioner -company is aggrieved by the decision of the AO dt. 16th Feb., 2006 and also by the assessment order dt. 24th Feb., 2006 made by him. The assessment order has been brought on record by filing a supplementary affidavit dt. 1st March, 2006.
(2.) NOTICE under Section 148 of the IT Act, 1961 was issued on 15th March, 2005. It was regarding asst. yr. 1998 -99. Reasons for reopening the assessment were recorded and disclosed by the AO on 2nd June, 2005. There is no dispute that the reasons were received by the petitioner -company on that day itself. In October, 2005 it moved this Court by filing a writ petition against steps taken by the authorities for transferring all its cases with a view to centralising its tax matters. Certain interim order was made. Notice under Section 142 was issued on 17th Jan., 2006. On 31st Jan., 2006 it submitted its objections to the reasons recorded and disclosed in support of reopening of the assessment. On 13th Feb., 2006 it submitted further grounds of objections. In the decision dt. 16th Feb., 2006 the AO recorded that objections of the petitioner -company had been considered. He did not make any speaking order. In a sentence he, apparently, disposed of the objections. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner -company submitted application dt.22nd Feb., 2006 requesting the AO to give the speaking order after considering the objections. Since the speaking order was not coming, it took out the present writ petition. The day copy of the writ petition was served, the AO served the assessment order dt. 24th Feb., 2006.
(3.) COUNSEL submits that both the decisions dt. 16th Feb., 2006 and the assessment order dt. 24th Feb., 2006 are liable to be set aside, since objections submitted by the petitioner -company were not disposed of by the AO by making a speaking order, though in view of the apex Court decision he was under an unqualified obligation to make a speaking order.;