F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.

The Revenue has come forward with these appeals challenging the order of the learned singe Judge dated 33. 2005, passed in W.P.Nos.10607, 10608, 10628 to 10631 of 2005. There were three sets of writ petitions filed by three assessees and the challenge in the writ petitions was to identical notices issued under Section 148 dated 111. 2004 and orders passed under Section 281B of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) dated 211. 2004. As the impugned orders are identical in nature, for the sake of convenience, we refer to the impugned notices and the connected proceedings in relation to the petitioner in W.P.Nos.10607 and 10608 of 2005, the orders of which are the subject matter of challenge in W.A.Nos.766 and 767 of 2005.

2. The writ petitioner was issued with a notice dated 111. 2004, under Section 148 of the Act calling upon him to file return of income in the prescribed format for the assessment year 2000-01, as the assessing authority had a reason to believe that his income in respect of the said assessment year chargeable to tax has escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act. Closely followed by that, by an order dated 211. 2004, purported to have been passed under Section 281B of the Act, the deposits held by the writ petitioner in the Union Bank of India, T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017 under Capital Gain Scheme (in short CGS) to an extent of more than Rs.15 crores, was provisionally attached. The said order came to be passed with the approval of the Commissioner of Income Tax. In pursuance of the notice issued under Section 148, the first respondent herein, viz., the writ petitioner filed his return of income along with the statement. In the schedule filed along with the said statement, it was specifically claimed, as regards the alleged escaped income, as provided from sale of shares of S.S.I. Limited to the value of Rs.216,723,750.00. The details of the CGS deposits with the Union Bank of India with the amounts kept in deposit were also furnished. On behalf of the writ petitioner, his Auditors came forward with the letter dated 211. 2004, calling upon the appellant to furnish a copy of the recording of reasons for reopening of assessment under Section 147 by relying upon a decision of the Honble Supreme Court with reference to the provisional attachment order passed.

3. By another letter dated 211. 2004, the Auditors while contending that the provisional attachment order under Section 281B was bad in law, requested to furnish the basis for quantification of the sum mentioned in the order of provisional attachment. On 12. 2004, the appellant furnished a copy of the recording of reasons for reopening of assessment under Section 147. Thereafter, the Auditors of the assessee, in their letter dated 112. 2004, sought for various statements said to have been recorded from various persons to be furnished in order to enable the assessee to file their objections against the reopening of the assessment. Thereafter, by letter dated 212. 2004, the appellant informed the assessee that at the time of hearing of the case for completion of reassessment proceedings, copies of all materials and other evidences would be made available.

.4. On behalf of the assessee, detailed objections were filed by their Auditors on 212. 2004 raising as many as twelve objections and general submissions. In the said objections, it was ultimately contended that the assessing officer could not have had any reason to believe that income liable to tax had escaped assessment, that therefore, the reassessment proceedings were not warranted or justified and that a speaking order should be passed. Subsequently, by letter dated 1. 2005, the Auditors of the assessee filed their additional objections. The appellant, by its letter dated 2. 2005, furnished the copies of statements taken from the Chief Manager of Union Bank of India, T.Nagar Branch and also the calculation of demand for attachment