2015 (2) TMI 664 - HC - Income Tax

Survey u/s 133A - whether survey ultra vires? - Held that - In the light of the statement made in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief sought for herein. If at all the petitioner would contend that the survey conducted is not sustainable under the provisions of the Act, then the same should be raised before the authority concerned, while challenging the assessment proceedings passed consequent upon the survey. At this stage, the learned standing counsel for the respondent submitted that the assessment proceedings was completed and the same was challenged by the petitioner by way of appeal and the appeal was partly allowed and no tax was demanded. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner reports no instruction in this regard. Be that as it may, going by the facts stated by the petitioner and the averments made in the counter affidavit, the relief sought for in this writ petition cannot be granted. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to the validity of a survey conducted under section 133A of the Income Tax Act 1961.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought a Writ of declaration to challenge the survey conducted by the respondent under section 133A of the Income Tax Act 1961. The petitioner claimed that the premises where the survey took place were not his and he had no connection to that place. The respondent, in a counter affidavit, argued that the premises were indeed the business place of the petitioner, who was conducting Real Estate Business under a specific name and address. The respondent contended that the Assessing Officer had the authority to conduct a survey at any place occupied by the person under assessment, even if it was not the principal place of business. The Court, considering the facts presented, refused to grant the relief sought by the petitioner, suggesting that any challenge to the survey should be raised during the assessment proceedings.

The respondent further informed the Court that the assessment proceedings had been completed, and the petitioner had appealed the decision, resulting in partial relief with no tax demanded. However, the petitioner's counsel did not confirm this information. Despite this, based on the facts and counter affidavit, the Court concluded that the relief requested in the writ petition could not be granted. As a result, the writ petition was dismissed, but the petitioner was given the liberty to raise all objections before the appropriate forum, without any costs imposed. The connected miscellaneous petition was also closed as a consequence of the judgment.