2024 (9) TMI 790 - HC - Income Tax

Validity of Assessment proceedings u/s 153C - petitioner approached this Court that despite the application having been made by the petitioner, the relevant documents were not supplied to him and in absence of the documents, the petitioner was unable to give proper reply to the notices issued to him - HELD THAT - The grievance/issue which is raised in the present writ petition was very much available to the petitioner. Petitioner did not make any prayer in the earlier writ petition in respect of the grievance/issue raised here, if any, as he stated in the present writ petition. A litigant cannot be allowed to come and file separate proceedings for each and every grievance/issue as and when he feels that same issue is there which was not raised in the earlier concluded proceedings between the same parties. This writ petition is barred by the principle of res-judicata/constructive res-judicata. The sum and substance of the writ petition is the proceedings in pursuance to the search and seizure operation conducted on the business and residential premises of the petitioner and the very same issue was before this Court in earlier writ petition. Considering the aforesaid facts, find this writ petition is nothing but a gross abuse of process of the court. The petitioner is adopting every trick to stall the early completion of the assessment proceedings. This Court cannot be a party to such a trick of a litigant. Writ petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Assessment proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Supply of relevant documents to the petitioner.
3. Deferral of assessment under Ext.P1, P3, and P12 notices.

The judgment pertains to the petitioner, an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961, engaged in the gold jewelry business. A search and seizure operation was conducted at the petitioner's premises, leading to the seizure of incriminating documents and materials. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking the deferral of assessment proceedings until relevant documents were supplied to him. The court disposed of the first writ petition with directions for the petitioner to request copies of relevant documents from the Department within ten days. The Department was instructed to provide the documents within fifteen days of the application, allowing the petitioner to respond to Ext.P4 notice within four weeks. Failure to comply would result in the Department proceeding with the assessment. The petitioner then filed a second writ petition seeking to defer assessment under Ext.P1, P3, and P12 notices until assessments for the relevant years were completed. The court noted that the grievance raised in the second petition was not addressed in the first petition, invoking the principle of res judicata. The court deemed the second petition an abuse of process and dismissed it.

In the first writ petition, the petitioner sought relief to defer assessment proceedings initiated following Ext.P1 and Ext.P3 notices until all seized documents were returned and to expedite investigations against the petitioner. The court directed the petitioner to request relevant documents from the Department within ten days and respond to Ext.P4 notice within four weeks of receiving the documents. Failure to comply would allow the Department to proceed with the assessment. The court emphasized that challenging the final assessment order on the ground of limitation would not be permitted if the petitioner responded within the stipulated timeframe. An interlocutory application in the first petition was dismissed, and further proceedings were to be kept in abeyance until the petitioner's response.

The petitioner, dissatisfied with the assessment proceedings under Section 153C, filed a second writ petition seeking to defer assessments under Ext.P1, P3, and P12 notices until assessments for the relevant years were completed. The court found that the issues raised in the second petition were not addressed in the first petition, leading to the application of the principle of res judicata. The court viewed the second petition as an attempt to delay assessment proceedings and an abuse of the court's process. Consequently, the court dismissed the second writ petition, emphasizing that litigants cannot file separate proceedings for grievances not raised in earlier concluded proceedings between the same parties.