9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 362X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Relying upon CIT v. Calcutta Knitwears [2014 (4) TMI 33 - SUPREME COURT] the contention that notice u/s 153C of the Act could not have been issued after search operations were over cannot be accepted. Relying upon Indo Asahi Glass Co. Ltd. v. ITO [2001 (9) TMI 5 - SUPREME Court] the petition cannot be entertained in view of the availability of statutory remedies - no opinion on the validity of the reference is expressed - it would be open for the petitioner to raise all contentions with respect to the validity of the notice u/s 153C as well as the reference made to the DVO before the appropriate forum Decided against Assessee. - Special Civil Application No. 30788 of 2007 - - - Dated:- 1-5-2014 - Akil Kureshi And Sonia Gokani,JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. Manish J. Shah, Adv. For the Respondents : Mrs. Mauna M. Bhatt, Adv. ORDER (Per : Honourable Mr. Justice Akil Kureshi ) Petitioner has challenged notice dated 1.8.2007 as at Annexure B to the petition issued by respondent No.1, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, under section 153C of the Income Tax Act,1961 ( the Act for short). The petitioner has also challenged the reference made by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s carried out on 7/3/2006 by the investigation Wing of the Department. During the course of search and seizure operation, the statement of Shri Shivlal G. Jain, a Managing Partner in M/s.Rajhans Builders (R.F.) was recorded under section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 wherein he admitted to have earned an unaccounted income of R. 6 crore in his group. Later, during the course of the search of his locker under section 132(1) he reaffirmed the admission of disclosure and revised the unaccounted income of his group concerns at Rs.8.25 crore. Subsequently, the assessee group i.e. Rajhans Group concerns and its individuals vide their letter dated 31/03/2006 addressed to the Asstt. Director of Income tax (Investigation) submitted the breakup of the disclosure made by him. The relevant extract of the letter is reproduced below: In this connection and with reference to the survey conducted u/s.133A of the I.T.Act, 1961 at our all business places of our group project sites and search carried out u/s.132 of the I.T.Act, 1961 at our residences, we have to state as under: During the course of search conducted on dated 7th March, 2006 at our residences and survey conducted on dated 7th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecording his satisfaction that on the basis of the documents seized during the search carried out against Rajhans Group of Companies, unaccounted income belonged to the assessee was unearthed, issued the impugned notice. At this stage, therefore, the court would not interfere. We are of the opinion that at this stage no interference is called for. Section 153C of the Act, as is well known, pertains to assessment of income of persons other than one who is subjected to search. Subsection (1) of section 153C provides that where any Assessing Officer is satisfied that any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or books of account or documents seized or requisitioned belongs or belonged to a person other than the person referred to in section 153A, then the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned shall be handed over to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person and that Assessing Officer shall proceed against each such other person and issue such other person notice and assess or reassess income of such other person in accordance with the provisions of section 153A of the Act. Section 158BD of the Act makes similar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 could have dismissed these civil appeals only on the ground of failure to exhaust statutory remedy, but for the fact that huge investments involving the large number of industries is in issue. 15. We are fortified by the decision of this Court in Indo Asahi Glass Co. Ltd. v. ITO, (2002) 10 SCC 444, wherein the assessee had approached this Court against the judgment and order of the High Court which had dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the assessee wherein challenge was made to the show cause notice issued by the Assessing Authority on the ground that alternative remedy was available to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
