2013 (8) TMI 47 - HC - Income Tax

Stay of proceedings - various rounds of litigation - Search proceedings - Matter in appeal before apex court - Petitioner contends for stay of proceedings initiated from search and seizure due to order of this court - Held that - The principle is well settled that the statement that a fact as to what transpired at the hearing recorded in the judgment of the Court, are conclusive of the fact so stated and no one can contradict the such statement by affidavit or other evidence - Filing of the present application is nothing but an abuse of the process of Court - Decided against assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Review of the court's decision regarding the right to inspect records related to the authorization of a search.
2. Early listing of writ petitions.
3. Stay of further proceedings initiated post-search and seizure.
4. Grant of other reliefs admissible under law and equity.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Review of the Court's Decision Regarding the Right to Inspect Records Related to the Authorization of a Search:
The petitioner sought the court to hold that the writ petitions are open for decision on all issues except the right to inspect records related to the authorization of the search. The background involves a search conducted by the Income Tax Department on 15/16th September 2009. The petitioners argued that there was no relevant material for framing a reasonable belief that the search was necessary and that the court cannot consider any document unless shown to the petitioner or their counsel. The court had previously ruled on 4th November 2011 that the petitioners were not entitled to the satisfaction note for conducting the search. The petitioner argued that the order dated 4.2.2011 was passed contrary to the order sheet dated 8th December 2010, which limited the scope of the controversy. However, the court held that the judgment dated 4.2.2011 was passed after hearing the arguments at full length and considered all points raised by the petitioner. The court emphasized that judicial records are unquestionable and cannot be contradicted by affidavits or other evidence, citing precedents from the Supreme Court.

2. Early Listing of Writ Petitions:
The petitioner requested the court to direct for the listing of the writ petitions at an early date. The court noted that the writ petition is still pending consideration and required to be heard on other points. The court did not provide a specific directive for early listing but indicated that the matter should proceed in due course.

3. Stay of Further Proceedings Initiated Post-Search and Seizure:
The petitioner sought an interim stay from further proceedings initiated by the respondents following the search and seizure action. The court had previously ordered that the assessment proceedings under Sections 153-A and 153-C may continue, but the final assessment order should not be passed until the next listing. The court did not grant a stay on further proceedings but maintained the interim order to prevent the final assessment order from being passed.

4. Grant of Other Reliefs Admissible Under Law and Equity:
The petitioner sought any other reliefs found admissible under law and equity. The court did not grant any additional reliefs and dismissed the review application, concluding that no case for reviewing the judgment dated 4.2.2011 was made out. The court emphasized that the application was not bona fide and constituted an abuse of the process of the court.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the review application with a cost of Rs.10,000, emphasizing that the judicial records are conclusive and cannot be contradicted by affidavits or other evidence. The court maintained the interim order preventing the final assessment order from being passed but did not grant a stay on further proceedings or provide specific directives for early listing of the writ petitions. The court found the review application to be an abuse of the process and not bona fide.

← Previous Next →