2024 (3) TMI 1308 - HC - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment without releasing seized documents by Crime branch - as argued Crime branch has seized certain documents computers hard disks etc. from the petitioner and until all this is released the petitioner would not be in a position to effectively respond to the notices of reassessment - HELD THAT - There is a vague and omnibus statement in the petition that the petitioner pursued the matter with the second respondent for release in terms of the JMFC s order however this vague and omnibus statement is not backed by any material documents etc. There is no averment in the petition about furnish of any indemnity bond. Orally it was attempted to submit that the indemnity bond must have been given at some time after the JMFC made her order dated 06.02.2018. Thus it is apparent to us that the petitioner even after securing the order dated has not pursued the matter for the last about six years with the necessary seriousness and just because the tax authorities are proceeding with the reassessment proceedings this petition has been instituted. This petition is nothing but an attempt to stall the reassessment proceedings without any justifiable cause. On the ground that the seized documents have not been released the petitioner succeeded in securing a remand from the lTAT. This is evident from the order dated 30.08.2022 made by the ITAT. ITAT after granting an opportunity to the petitioner remanded the reassessment proceedings or the block assessment proceedings to the ITO for de novo assessment. The petitioner was also directed to comply with the notices in respect of the assessment proceeding and be diligent by avoiding to take any adjournments. This order was made on 30.08.2022. Despite the order of there is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner took any serious steps for obtaining the documents/material/hard disks from the second respondent. The only letter produced on record is dated when in fact even the IT notice was issued on 25.01.2024. Thus it is very apparent that the petitioner simply wants to stall the reassessment proceedings or the de novo proceedings at any cost. The writ Court cannot assist the petitioner in such endeavours.

Summary

Issues involved: Petition for release of seized documents, de novo assessment proceedings, abuse of judicial process.

Details of the judgment:

1. The petitioner requested urgent relief to stop reassessment proceedings due to seized documents. The petitioner sought a writ mandamus to release seized items and stop de novo assessment by the ITAT. The court heard arguments from both sides.

2. The petitioner's claim was based on the seizure of documents by the crime branch, hindering their ability to respond to reassessment notices effectively. The petitioner requested the release of all seized items as per the court order.

3. The court found the petition to be an abuse of the judicial process. The Judicial Magistrate had previously directed the release of seized items subject to conditions, including an indemnity bond and restrictions on altering the items.

4. The court noted the lack of effort by the petitioner to follow up on the court order for the release of seized items. Despite a remand from the ITAT for de novo assessment, the petitioner did not take serious steps to obtain the necessary documents.

5. The court concluded that the petitioner's intention was to stall the reassessment proceedings without a justifiable cause. As a result, the petition was dismissed with a cost of Rs. 25,000 to be paid to the Goa State Legal Services Authority within two weeks.