HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer and Ors.
Civil Appeal Nos. 7731, 7732, 7733-7734, 7735, 7736 and 7737 of 2002
[2002] Supp. 4 SCR 359 ·
148 · 143(2)
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
2-judge bench · Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J. · Arijit Pasayat, J.
Assessment years: 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95, 1995-96, 1996-97, 1997-98, 1998-99
01 · Facts of the case
GKN challenged notices under sections 148 and 143(2). The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition on the basis that objections could be raised in reply to the notices and that the writ challenge was premature. Seven assessment years were originally involved. During the appeals, assessments for 1995-96 and 1996-97 were completed and challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals); the notices for 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95, 1997-98 and 1998-99 remained before the Supreme Court. Reasons for those notices had been disclosed during the proceedings (unnumbered order, reported page 360).
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The Court found no justification for interfering with the High Court's order, but clarified the procedure under the then section 148 framework. The noticee should file a return and may seek the reasons for the notice. The Assessing Officer must supply those reasons within a reasonable time. Once reasons are received, the noticee may object to the issuance of the notice, and the officer must decide the objections by a speaking order.
Because reasons had already been disclosed in this litigation, the operative direction was specific: if objections were filed for the five remaining assessment years, the officer had to decide them by a speaking order before proceeding with assessment. The Court did not decide whether the stated reopening grounds were substantively sufficient and did not quash the notices. For the two completed assessments, it required expeditious disposal of the pending appeals (unnumbered order, reported page 360).
03 · Judicial decision
The civil appeals were dismissed with the stated observations and no costs. The High Court's refusal to entertain the premature writ challenge remained undisturbed; reasoned disposal of any objections before assessment was required for the five pending years, and the Commissioner (Appeals) was directed to dispose of the two assessment appeals expeditiously.
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
In whose favour: Revenue on dismissal of the writ-stage appeals; assessee received the specified procedural safeguards
Civil appeals dismissed with directions; no costs
Final procedural order; substantive validity of the reopening grounds and tax liability not decided
Reasons already disclosed; speaking-order direction applied to objections, if filed, for the five specified years. Completed assessments for the other two years remained in the appellate process.
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
For a proceeding governed by this historical framework, preserve the return, request for reasons, communicated reasons, objections and order disposing of them in a clear chronology. The operative safeguard is a reasoned decision on objections before assessment, but the actual result here was dismissal of the appeals. The judgment is not itself a decision that every procedural defect automatically annuls a reassessment or that the notices in this case were invalid.
Do not copy the sequence into a current notice response without checking the statutory regime applicable to that notice. This review does not certify present deadlines, post-2021 procedure or the effect of subsequent cases.
Judicial authorship and separate opinions
Order of the Court; no individual author namedAct identified in the reviewed source
Income-tax Act, 1961Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Identified source rendition: 2 PDF pages; SHA-256 cf3259922b5fcb9cdeaf5710d7234068d7cbea2d9a14fca598413a8f0f2358f0. Original bytes preserved. The complete unnumbered judicial order is on physical page 2 after the order-introduction line on page 1; the page 1 headnote is editorial. Full bounded judicial text read from the cached page extraction; identity, disposition and selected source anomalies visually checked against the preserved PDF. Public mirror provenance and checksum match the repository index; no independently obtained signed original is claimed.
- SCR citation, judgment date, bench and case numbers checked in the preserved reported PDF. No neutral citation inferred.
- Objections-before-assessment direction concerns 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95, 1997-98 and 1998-99. Assessments for 1995-96 and 1996-97 had already been completed; the pending Commissioner (Appeals) matters for those years were directed to be decided expeditiously.
- The reported jurisdiction on physical page 1 dates the High Court order 31 January 2002; the judicial narrative on page 2 prints 31 January 2001. The discrepancy is preserved rather than silently resolved. The Supreme Court decision date is unambiguously 25 November 2002.; The judicial order has no numbered paragraphs; pinpoints use physical PDF page 2 and reported page 360.; The original notices covered seven years, but the objections-before-assessment direction covers only the five years whose assessments had not been completed.
Statutory scope
Historical judgment review only. No automatic mapping to the Income-tax Act, 2025 or certification of present law or procedure.
Later treatment
Source checked 2026-10-04. No comprehensive subsequent judicial treatment or current-law audit.
Page references identify the supplied PDF; paragraph references identify the judgment unless stated otherwise.
Identified source links
- reported judgment — PDF 2 pages
SHA-256: cf3259922b5fcb9cdeaf5710d7234068d7cbea2d9a14fca598413a8f0f2358f0
Coverage, AI disclosure & professional disclaimer
Selected Supreme Court income-tax decisions and procedural orders checked against their identified sources. This collection is not exhaustive. The research catalogue has 2,569 indexed PDF assets, including alternate copies and incidental matches; that is not a count of unique or reviewed judgments. Historical and unreported coverage remains open.
AI-assisted research checked against the identified source. Extraction, interpretation or omission errors remain possible. Source review does not mean independent approval by a practising professional. Verify every material statement against the complete original judgment.
General research information only; not legal or tax advice, a certified judgment or a substitute for the full order. Applicability depends on facts, assessment year, statutory version and jurisdiction. Subsequent treatment is unverified unless a note expressly identifies the sources checked. Downloading does not create a professional engagement. Obtain case-specific advice before reliance.
The official 1961–2025 structural correspondence does not establish that a precedent applies under the new Act. Verify the enacted wording, commencement and transitional provisions separately.