2022 (3) TMI 302 - HC - Income Tax

Assessment u/s 153A - Period of limitation - HELD THAT - This Court had directed the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue to apprise the Court with regard to the stipulated period of limitation that would be applicable for completion of the Assessment Proceedings by the A.O. concerned in respect to the show-cause notices for the relevant years issued to the petitioners as detailed hereinabove. At the time of resumption of hearing today, the learned counsel for the Revenue, upon instructions from the Department, very fairly concedes that the period of limitation for concluding the Assessment Proceedings under Section 153-A of the I.T. Act has been provided under Section 153-B which was in operation at the time of search on 24.9.2014 and not the period of limitation as substituted by the amendment with effect from 1.6.2016. It is not in dispute that as per the period of limitation operational with effect from 1.6.2003 before its amendment with effect from 1.6.2016 provided the period of limitation for completion of the block assessment years within two years . This stand of the Revenue squarely addresses the relief qua extension of limitation period. Jurisdiction to initiate the Assessment Proceedings by the A.O. for the relevant assessment years - We are unable to persuade ourselves to issue any direction to the Assessing officer as to how he should decide the said application prior to the completion of the Assessment Proceedings. Passing of such an order, at this stage, would amount to passing a peremptory order which would be totally beyond the scope of our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Needless to say, we hope that the jurisdictional issue raised by the petitioners would be addressed by the Assessing Officer concerned at the appropriate stage. Application dated 29.10.2021 seeking inspection of records of search and the satisfaction note - We find that the AO had already provided an opportunity to both the petitioners to appear before him on 16.11.2021 or 17.11.2021 (between 11 A.M. to 5 P.M.) to inspect the record and the satisfaction note.The petitioners in spite of receipt of the said intimation choose to stay away from doing the needful. Still, if the Assessing Authority in its discretion feels that one more opportunity is required to be given, nothing stops him from adopting such a recourse. However, no mandamus is warranted to be issued by us, because entertaining such requests made by the assessee including the direction to pass a speaking order during the proceedings, would result in unnecessarily delaying the proceedings. Further, putting pressure on the Assessing Authorities would invariably affect the due discharge of their duties, apart from opening of Pandora s box, resulting in abuse of the process of the Court. It is to be acknowledged that in case any plea raised before the Assessing Authority and the said Authority fails to address their plea, the petitioners would be free to make a grievance before the Appellate Authority. We are of the opinion that no exceptional case is made out by the petitioners warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution at this stage of the proceedings before the Assessing Officer.

Summary

Issues:
1. Writ petitions seeking mandamus for disposal of applications and extension of time limit for final assessment.
2. Similarity in facts and issues of both writ petitions.
3. Period of limitation for completion of Assessment Proceedings under Section 153-A of the I.T. Act.
4. Jurisdiction to initiate Assessment Proceedings and inspection of search records.
5. Dismissal of both writ petitions.

Analysis:
1. The petitioners, including companies operating in cement and iron ore beneficiation, filed writ petitions seeking mandamus for disposal of applications and extension of time limit for final assessment. The petitions requested proper disposal of applications along with an extension of the time limit for final assessment, as well as inspection of search records and satisfaction notes.

2. Due to the similarity in facts and issues of both writ petitions, they were heard together and disposed of by a common order. The petitions concerned the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Sambalpur, handling proceedings under Section 153-A of the I.T. Act for block assessments for six years following a search conducted in 2014 at the premises of the companies and their directors.

3. The court addressed the period of limitation for completing the Assessment Proceedings under Section 153-A of the I.T. Act. The Revenue conceded that the period of limitation was governed by Section 153-B in operation at the time of the search in 2014, not the amended period effective from 2016. The court noted that the Revenue's stand on the period of limitation addressed the relief sought for an extension of the limitation period.

4. Regarding the jurisdiction to initiate Assessment Proceedings and inspection of search records, the court declined to issue directions to the Assessing Officer on deciding the jurisdictional issue before completing the Assessment Proceedings. The court emphasized that passing such an order would exceed its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court also noted that the Assessing Officer had provided an opportunity for inspection of records, and any further opportunities could be at the discretion of the Assessing Authority.

5. Ultimately, the court dismissed both writ petitions, concluding that no exceptional case was made out warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution at that stage of the proceedings before the Assessing Officer. The court highlighted that petitioners could address any grievances before the Appellate Authority if needed.