2022 (6) TMI 809 - HC - Income Tax

Assessment u/s 153A - Validity of search proceedings - validity of the order of transfer passed u/s 127 - As argued no due and sufficient opportunity was afforded to the petitioner during the proceedings of search and seizure operations conducted u/s 132 of the IT Act on nine residential premises, one business premises and seven bank lockers - HELD THAT - A bare perusal of the impugned assessment order reveals that notice was issued to the petitioner during the conduction of search and seizure operations which were duly responded to by the petitioner by contending that the returns already filed by him be treated as returns for the purpose of search and seizure proceedings. More so, the said return of computation of income and reply of the petitioner were taken into account before the impugned assessment order was passed. During the search and seizure operations, discrepancies were found which indicated towards tax evasion. The ground taken by the petitioner of pendency of the litigation in the Allahabad High Court is of no assistance since the cause raised therein is regarding legality and validity of the order of transfer passed u/s 127 of the IT Act. Assuming without admitting that the said petition is allowed by the Allahabad High Court, even then the search and seizure operation which led to the passing of impugned order herein would not be adversely affected. More so, Allahabad High Court has not granted any interim order in favour of the petitioner. As regards the ground of penalty notice having been issued without passing an assessment order, the same further does not assist the petition since the impugned order is an order of assessment arrived at after conduction of detailed search and seizure operation of assessment proceedings which found the petitioner to be involved in tax evasion and therefore it was well within the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to have issued notice for penalty. In the conspectus of above discussion and the failure of the petitioners to make out a case of denial of reasonable opportunity of being heard, this Court declines interference, especially when the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy under the IT Act which has not been availed yet. Thus, this Court declining interference extends liberty to the petitioners to avail the alternative remedy before the appropriate Appellate Authority which if availed within a period of 60 days from today shall be considered and decided on its own merits without being dismissed on limitation alone, provided the petitioner complies with all other statutory requirements.

Summary

Issues:
Petitioner challenges assessment order for multiple years based on lack of opportunity, post-haste assessment, and penalty notice issuance without prior assessment.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to multiple petitions with a common question of law and factual matrix, consolidated for a common order. The petitioner contests the assessment order issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, alleging lack of reasonable opportunity to be heard. The Revenue argues that the petitioner was given due opportunity during search and seizure operations, with notices issued under relevant IT Act sections for different assessment years. The petitioner's contention that returns already filed should suffice for the assessment is considered, but discrepancies indicating tax evasion were found during the operations.

The petitioner also raises concerns about the assessment being rushed and penalty notices being issued without a prior assessment order. However, the court notes that the assessment order was based on detailed proceedings following the search and seizure operation, identifying tax evasion by the petitioner. The court rejects the petitioner's arguments regarding the pendency of litigation in another High Court and the issuance of penalty notices, stating that the Assessing Officer had jurisdiction to issue such notices based on the assessment findings.

Ultimately, the court finds that the petitioner failed to establish a case of denial of a reasonable opportunity to be heard. As the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy under the IT Act, the court declines interference and advises the petitioner to pursue the remedy before the Appellate Authority within 60 days. The court ensures that the case will be considered on its merits without dismissal on limitation grounds if all statutory requirements are met.