S.P. BHARUCHA, J. Under appeal by special leave is an order of a Division Bench of the High Court at Bombay, sitting at Panaji. By that order the writ petition filed by the appellant was summarily dismissed By the writ petition the appellant challenged the validity of a notice issued to it by the first respondent under s. 148 of the IT Act, 1961. The notice alleged that the first respondent had reason to believe that the appellants income chargeable to tax for the asst. yr. 1986-87 had escaped assessment and that, therefore, the first respondent proposed to assess the appellants income for that assessment year. It was averred in the writ petition that the first respondent had failed to disclose the reasons that he was obliged to record under s. 148(2) for reopening the assessment. Further, the writ petition averred that the respondents had already issued a notice to the appellant under s. 148 of the IT Act, 1961, for the same assessment year and that the appellant had, in compliance therewith, filed a return, It was asserted that, therefore, the second notice under s. 148 did not lie The Division Bench took the view that s. 148 merely required that reasons should be recorded, not that they should be communicated. Since, therefore, there was, in its view, no failure to perform a statutory duty, it could not call for and examine the reasons. As to the ground in relation to the previous notice, the Division Bench noted that it had not been asserted in the writ petition that the authority had made an assessment pursuant to the previous notice. It observed that the appellant had submitted to the jurisdiction of the authority under s. 148 and, therefore, "acquiesced off the grievance" We are afraid that the High Court was in error on both counts. It is trite law that when an assessee challenges a notice to reopen under s. 147 on the ground that no reasons under s. 148 had been recorded or disclosed, the Court must call for and examine the reasons, and, in fact, ordinarily, the reasons are set out by the respondents to the writ petition in their counter. The High Court also did not appreciate that if the appellant had already been served with a notice under s. 148 and had complied therewith by filing a return, it was entitled to contend that no second notice lay and also to submit that, in any event, the second notice was barred by timeIt is, therefore, necessary to set aside the order of summarily dismissal of the writ petition and to restore the writ petition (Writ Petition No. 356 of 1991) to the file of the High Court to be heard and disposed of on merits. Our observations are confined to the order of summarily dismissal that is impugned and should not in anyway influence the decision of the Court on merits. Both the parties shall be entitled to take all available contentions at such hearing. The writ petition, having regard to the lapse of time, shall be decided expeditiously Order on the appeal accordingly. No order as to costs.