9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 740X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt - High Court ought not have entertained the Writ Petition and instead should have directed the assessee to file reply to the said notices and upon receipt of a decision from the Assessing Authority, if for any reason it is aggrieved by the said decision, to question the same before the forum provided under the Act - Matter remitted back for filing of replies and procedure thereof - Following decision of Bellary Steels Alloys Ltd. v. CCT [2009 (8) TMI 688 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] and Indo Asahi Glass Co. Ltd. v. ITO [2001 (9) TMI 5 - SUPREME Court] - Decided in favour of Revenue. - CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5888 OF 2013 (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.8947 OF 2011) WITH C.A.NO.5896 OF 2013 @ S.L.P.(C)NO.29038/2011, WITH C.A.NO.5897 OF 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n individuals including the assessee. Accordingly, for further proceedings the Assessing Authority had transmitted the seized documents to the jurisdictional Assessing Authority in whose jurisdiction the assessee was being assessed. After receipt of the said information/documents, the Assessing Authority has recorded a satisfaction note dated 06.10.2009, that, he has reason to believe that a case of escapement of income may exist and therefore the assessee's case requires to be reassessed for assessment years 2001- 2002 to 2006-2007 under Section 153C of the Act, 1961. The relevant paragraphs of the said satisfaction note read as under: "SATISFACTION NOTE FOR INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S.153C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 Name of the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tutory scheme for assessment in case of search and requisition as prescribed under Sections 153A, 153B and 153C of the Act, 1961 and reached the conclusion that the documents seized by the Assessing Authority under Section 132A do not belong to the assessee and therefore the condition precedent for issuance of the notice under Section 153C is not fulfilled. Accordingly the High Court has allowed the Writ Petition filed by the assessee and quashed the said notices issued by the Assessing Authority by the impugned judgment and order. 8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the High Court, the Assessing Authority is before us in this appeal. 9. We have heard Shri Prasad, learned counsel for the Assessing Authority and Sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Assessing Authority by filing an appropriate reply to the said notices instead of filing the Writ Petition impugning the said notices. It is settled law that when an alternate remedy is available to the aggrieved party, it must exhaust the same before approaching the Writ Court. In Bellary Steels Alloys Ltd. v. CCT, (2009) 17 SCC 547, this Court had allowed the assessee therein to withdraw the original Writ Petition filed before the High Court as the said proceedings came to be filed against the show-cause notice and observed that the High Court should not have interfered in the matter as the Writ Petition was filed without even reply to the show cause notice. This Court further observed as follows: "3....In the circumstances, we c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y, if for any reason it is aggrieved by the said decision, to question the same before the forum provided under the Act. 17. In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the correctness or otherwise of the construction that is placed by the High Court on Section 153C, we set aside the impugned judgment and order. Further, we grant time to the assessee, if it so desires, to file reply/objections, if any, as contemplated in the said notices within 15 days' time from today. If such reply/objections is/are filed within time granted by this Court, the Assessing Authority shall first consider the said reply/objections and thereafter direct the assessee to file the return for the assessment years in question. We make it clear that whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9 of 2010, dated 26.07.2011 and 1493 of 2010, dated 21.12.2011 respectively. 20. In these appeals the Tribunal and the High Court, after going through the facts and circumstances of each case, have reached the conclusion that the Assessing Authority was not justified in computing the assessments and thereafter fastening liability on the assessee to pay tax and interest. Since these appeals are primarily decided on facts by the First Appellate Authority, the Tribunal and the High Court, we do not find any substantial question of law which requires to be decided by this Court. 21. We make it abundantly clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the correctness or otherwise of the observations made by the High Court insofar as the int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
