9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Legality of income-tax search conducted under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Validity of notices issued under section 158BC of the Income-tax Act for filing returns. 3. Dispute regarding search warrants and premises of the petitioners. 4. Challenge against block assessment under section 158BC of the Income-tax Act. 5. Preclusion of re-agitating issues raised in an earlier petition. 6. Request for time extension to file returns under section 158BC. Analysis: 1. The petitioners contested the legality of the income-tax search conducted under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at their premises. They argued that the search warrants were in the name of a different individual residing in a separate flat within the same building. The petitioners claimed no business relationship with the individual named in the search warrant and objected to the search conducted without proper authorization against them. 2. Notices were issued to the petitioners under section 158BC of the Income-tax Act, directing them to file returns for a specified block period. The petitioners challenged the validity of these notices, alleging that the search conducted was illegal and the directions to file returns were unjustified. They sought relief from the court to prevent further action based on the search and to declare the search as illegal. 3. The dispute regarding search warrants and premises arose as the respondents argued that both brothers, including the petitioners and their mother, resided in the same premises. The respondents contended that the presence of the petitioners' locker keys in the other brother's flat established a close link between the petitioners and the individual named in the search warrants. 4. The issue of block assessment under section 158BC of the Income-tax Act was raised, with the respondents asserting that such assessment follows a search conducted under section 132. The petitioners challenged this procedure, claiming illegality in proposing a block assessment under section 158BC without proper grounds. The respondents argued that the petitioners had previously challenged the search legality in a withdrawn petition, barring them from re-agitating the same issue. 5. The court highlighted the preclusion of re-agitating issues raised in an earlier petition, emphasizing that the petitioners were not granted permission to file a fresh petition after withdrawing the previous one. The court deemed it inappropriate to entertain the same challenges on the legality of the search in the current proceedings, citing public policy considerations and discouraging bench-hunting tactics. 6. Lastly, the petitioners requested an extension of time to file returns under section 158BC of the Act, which was granted by the court. Despite the request, both writ petitions were dismissed for lacking merit, with the court emphasizing the petitioners' preclusion from challenging the search legality based on previous proceedings and the availability of remedies through appeal against assessment orders.
|
