2015 (10) TMI 2378 - HC - Income Tax

Rectification of mistake - Search and seizure operation challenged - Held that - The plea for the quashing of the assessment order was neither raised nor considered by the Court nor the amendment application was ever pressed. The reason for not pressing the application could be for a variety of reasons and one of them could be the plea of an alternative remedy, namely, an appeal before the first appellate authority against the assessment order. According to the respondents, an appeal had already been filed before the first appellate authority. Whatever may be the reason, the fact remains that the validity and legality of the assessment orders were never argued before the Court nor the amendment application was pressed. There is no error apparent on the face of the record which requires reconsideration or rectification. Since the amendment application was not pressed, it was not open for the Court to consider the validity of the assessment orders so passed during the pendency of the writ petition.

Summary

Issues: Review application against judgment dated 27.3.2015, validity of search and seizure operation, assessment orders passed under Section 153-A of the Income Tax Act, plea for quashing of assessment order, amendment application not pressed, error apparent on the face of the record, alternative remedy of appeal before first appellate authority.

Analysis:

The review application was filed against a judgment dated 27.3.2015, with emphasis on grounds 3 and 4 regarding the validity of search and seizure operations and the assessment orders passed under Section 153-A of the Income Tax Act. The petitioners argued that due to the findings of the Court, the assessment orders were invalid and should be set aside, citing a Federal Court decision regarding rectification of errors apparent on the face of the record.

The Court noted that an amendment application seeking to quash the block assessment order was filed but not pressed during the proceedings. The petitioners did not argue the validity of the assessment orders on merits, but contended that based on the Court's findings, the orders could not withstand scrutiny and should be quashed. However, the written submissions did not assert for the quashing of the assessment order.

The main relief sought in the writ petition was the quashing of the search and seizure operation, and the Court had already considered and decided on this issue. The plea for quashing the assessment orders was not raised or considered by the Court, and the amendment application was never pressed during the proceedings.

The Court concluded that since the amendment application was not pressed, there was no error apparent on the face of the record requiring reconsideration or rectification. As the validity and legality of the assessment orders were never argued before the Court, and an appeal had already been filed before the first appellate authority, the review application was found to lack merit and was rejected.