9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 817X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stage the filing of objections to the proceeding has to stop. Otherwise, there will be no end to the petitioner's time and again filing objections and the officer passing order every time. Therefore, the contention raised by the petitioner on this issue for this Court to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction must also be rejected. Satisfaction note is not for all the assessment years, and in the absence of any co-relation of the document with the assessment years for which the notice is issued, the same constitutes a violation of condition of Section 153C - In our view, this would require examining the documents with the assessment year for which the notice is issued. This investigation of co-relation of the documents assessment year wise cannot be done by this Court and more so while exercising discretionary extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This factual co-relation must be done by the authorities under the Act and therefore the efficacious and alternate remedy is more appropriate for adjudication of this issue and this Court cannot be converted into the role of an assessing officer for carrying out this investigation. Therefore, ev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to raise all the issues raised in these petitions before the authorities under the Act in accordance with law. WP dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petitioner requested to open the window to comply with the notice under Section 153C of the Act. The petitioner also requested a copy of the satisfaction note for issuing such a notice. (v) On 6 April 2024, the petitioner objected to the notice under Section 153C of the Act by uploading its objections on the respondents' portal. In the said objection, the petitioner requested a copy of the satisfaction recorded before issuing the notice. The petitioner further stated in its objection that the relevant documents from the Assessing Officer (AO) of the search person may have been received in and around January 2024 and, therefore, the notice under Section 153C can be issued for six assessment years but not later than 10 assessment years if the income escaping assessment is likely to exceed Rs.50 lakh. The assessee also raised a plea concerning the computation of the block period, whether it should be from the date of receipt of books of the accounts by the jurisdictional AO of the non-search person or the actual date of search in the case of the person against whom the search action has been initiated and accordingly the period of the "relevant assessment years" is to be cal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an order rejecting the petitioner's objections. In the said order, the respondents referred to the incriminating material for the assessment years 2014-15, 2015-16, and 2016-17 and further, after referring to the same, it is stated that these transactions are likely to have a bearing on the total income of the petitioner for assessment years 2010-11 to 2020-21. The order further states that since the undisclosed income by using accommodation entries as escaped assessment is likely to exceed Rs.50 lakh, the assessment proceedings must be taken under Section 153C of the Act. The respondents also rejected the petitioner's contention that the notice is time-barred. The respondents also stated that the interpretation of the phrase "relevant assessment year" by the petitioner is not correct, and the condition for issuing notices under Section 153C of the Act has been correctly met. Along with the said order, the petitioner was provided with various materials, including the satisfaction note. 6. Against the above backdrop, the petitioner is challenging the issue of notice under Section 153C of the Act dated 28 February 2024 and the order rejecting the objection dated 28 December ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... found and, therefore, the respondents should not be restrained from proceeding with the assessment proceedings at this stage. He submitted that the issues raised can be adjudicated in the appeal proceedings. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents. 10. At the outset, we wish to state that the petitioner in the Writ Petition at page 42, paragraph 6, has stated that the petitioner has no equally efficacious alternate remedy and, therefore, has approached this Court through Writ Petitions. In our view, the issues raised in the present petitions can be agitated before the Appellate Authority in an appeal filed against an order passed under Section 153C of the Act. The said order under Section 153C of the Act is appealable. The present notice and the orders challenged in interlocutory proceedings cannot be challenged in the Writ Petition and more so for the reasons we propose to set out hereinafter. 11. The petitioner has stated that the proceedings are bad in law since no incriminating material was found for certain years. The present proceedings are initiated under the documents and information received from the assessing officer at New Delhi who had in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court to go into the factual issues. In its extraordinary jurisdiction, this Court cannot venture into such exercise and exercise its discretionary jurisdiction for adjudication of this issue. Therefore, in our view, even this issue can efficaciously be adjudicated in the assessment and the appeal proceedings under the Act and not in the writ proceedings. 15. The petitioner further contended that no opportunity had been given to challenge the satisfaction note by the assessing officer. In our view, this is not correct because in the order dated 28 December 2024, the respondents have rejected the objections and in the said order it is expressly stated in paragraph 8 that the petitioner was given time of 15 days from the date of disposal of the objections to decide its further course of action in the matter and thereafter no objections would be entertained. We do not find any infirmity in this finding of the assessing officer in the order rejecting the objection. The assessing officer has given the opportunity to the petitioner to decide its course of action, and therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing writ petition. Insofar as non-entertainment of further obj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thorization for search under Section 132A was executed or 12 months from the end of the financial year in which books of accounts or documents or assets seized or requisition are handed over under Section 153C to the assessing officer having jurisdiction over such person whichever is later. To examine whether the limitation for deciding whether the assessment has become time-barred or not would require this Court to ascertain what was the last date of authorisation for search in the case of Alankit Group. We have not been shown by the petitioner the date of last authorisation. Therefore, it would not be appropriate for this Court to examine the issue of limitation raised in the present proceedings. Also, we may observe that there are conflicting decisions on this issue based on facts of each case. Therefore, it is appropriate that the authorities adjudicate this issue under the Act. However, that would not preclude the petitioner from raising a plea of limitation in the appeal proceedings if the petitioner is not satisfied with the assessment order. 19. In our view, it would be premature to presume that the assessment order passed under Section 153C would be against the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
