TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 953X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is correct or not cannot be held to be violations of principles of natural justice. If the petitioner is aggrieved, his only remedy is to file the statutory appeal. The respondent has adhered to the principles of natural justice by providing a fair hearing and by giving the petitioner sufficient opportunity to raise all the contentions and the respondent has also given reasons for rejecting the objections raised by the petitioner under the impugned assessment orders. New plea raised by the petitioner before this Court that the assessment orders have been passed without authority under Law , since the operation conducted at the premises of the asseesee on 10.08.2017, according to him, is only a survey under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act and not a search under Section 132(4) - Said plea taken before this Court is absolutely baseless. Nowhere in the written representation submitted by the petitioner on 08.11.2019 before the respondent, the said plea was taken. In all the representations made during the course of impugned assessment proceedings, the petitioner has admitted that the operation conducted by the respondent on 10.08.2017 is only a search proceeding under Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In the case on hand, the search was conducted on 10.08.2017 and the relevant six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year, in which search was conducted, are 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 and relevant assessment year for the date of the search is 2018-19. Therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the assessment orders have been passed by the respondent for the year 2018-19 without authority under Law under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, is rejected by this Court. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in these Writ Petitions, as principles of natural justice has not been violated by respondent, while passing the impugned assessment orders and the consequential demand notices. Therefore, the only remedy available to the petitioner is to file the statutory appeal under Section 264A of the Income Tax Act, which he has failed to exercise till date. The decision relied upon by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax and others vs Chhabil Das Agarwal [ 2013 (8) TMI 458 - SUPREME COURT] , while dealing with the al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, on 13.12.2017 within three months from the date of the search. It is the case of the petitioner that the statements recorded by the respondent from him was retracted by him on 22.08.2019. According to the petitioner, the statements obtained from the petitioner's late father under intimidating circumstances cannot be used against the petitioner for passing any orders against him. 6. It is the case of the petitioner that the sworn statement recorded by the respondent from the petitioner's late father in typed format does not have any legal sanctity and is non-est in law, as according to him, it was obtained through coercion. It is the case of the petitioner that the impugned assessment orders were passed by the respondent in violation of principles of natural justice. According to him, without affording adequate opportunity of hearing, the respondent has passed the impugned assessment orders under Section 153A of Income Tax Act, 1961, for the financial assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19 in a mechanical manner vide their impugned assessment orders, dated 25.12.2019 and the consequential impugned demand notices, dated 25.12.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, 1961. The statements recorded from the petitioner's late father, Mr. K. Murugesan, and other persons under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, have evidentiary value and it cannot be equated with the statement under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act 1961. (g) The loose sheets picked up during the search under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act 1961, are documents within the meaning of Section 2 of Indian Evidence Act 1872. This principle is supported by the decision of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in the case of the Commissioner of Income Tax vs Rangroopchand Chordia, reported in 2016 SCC Online Mad 4297. (h) According to the respondent, the decision of the Hono urable Supreme Court in the case of CBI vs V.C.Shukla and others reported in 1998 (3) SCC 410, relied upon by the petitioner does not arise in the context of proceedings under the Income Tax Act, 1961, and hence, not applicable to the case on hand. (i) Though there was retraction of statements made by the petitioner (assessee) on the date of search, the respondent rejected the same on the appreciation of the returns, where, admittedly, a particular amount is shown as undisclos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rusal of the pre-assessment notice, dated 08.11.2019 issued by the assessing officer (Ex-C), the written statement of the petitioner, dated 08.11.2019 (Ex-D), further submission of the petitioner (assessee), dated 02.12.2019 (Ex-E), further letter to the petitioner (assessee), dated 05.12.2019 (ExF) and the assessment order (Ex-G), it can clearly be seen that the assessing officer has considered all facts and material evidence placed by the petitioner and has given him a sufficient opportunity and only thereafter, has passed the impugned assessment orders. (p) The written representation of the petitioner, dated 08.11.2019, clearly shows that the petitioner has sufficient knowledge about both the business of his late father and the seized materials. The only request from the petitioner for cross examination was with reference to an addition in respect of loan given to one Shri.Seetharaman. The assessing officer has denied the request on the ground that the proposed addition was not merely based on the oral evidence of third party, Shri.Seetharaman, but was based on materials seized from the premises of the petitioner (assessee). (q) Section 153A of the Income Tax Act provi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decision of learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court in the case of M/s.A.Thangavel Nadar Stores vs The Income Tax Officer, passed in W.P.Nos.21919 to 21921 of 2018 on 25.02.2019, and would submit that a statement recorded under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act does not have any evidentiary value, obviously for the reason that the Officer is not authorised to administer oath and to take any sworn statement, which alone, has evidentiary value, as contemplated under Law. 12. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would further contend that the impugned assessment orders and the consequential demand notices have to be quashed, since the search was conducted on 10.08.2017 and subsequently, even before the petitioner's father could retract the statement made during search, he died. According to him, no sufficient opportunity was granted to the petitioner's father to retract his submission made during the time of the search and therefore, principles of natural justice has been violated by the respondent, while passing the impugned assessment orders. 13. The learned Counsel for petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the impugned assessment orders and would sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns are not maintainable and the only remedy available to the petitioner is to file the statutory appeal under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act. In support of his submission, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent relied upon a decision of Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax and others vs Chhabil Das Agarwal reported in (2014) 1 SCC 603. 17. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent drew the attention of this Court to the respective affidavits filed by the petitioner in support of the respective Writ Petitions and submitted that the only for the first time, during the course of the arguments made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it is pointed out that the respondent had only conducted a survey under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act and not conducted search under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent pointed out that nowhere in the pleadings, the petitioner has stated that the operation of the respondent on 10.08.2017 is only a survey and not a search. 18. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent would submit that the loose sheets seized from the petitioner's ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ather as well as about the seized materials. Further, as seen from the impugned assessment orders, it is clear that the petitioner had only made a request for cross examination only with reference to an addition of income in respect of loan granted to one Shri. Seetharaman. 21. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent after referring to the impugned assessment orders, would submit that the Assessing Officer denied the request of the petitioner for cross examination on the ground that the proposed addition was not merely based on the oral evidence of Shri.Seetaraman, but, based on materials seized from the premises of the assessee. Since the assessee has accepted to have given these loans in the sworn statement and since the oral evidence of 3rd party was used only as a corroborated evidence, there was no need for the petitioner to cross examine the 3rd party, Shri. Seetharaman. 22. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent also referred to a decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Income Tax Officer vs M.Pirai Choodi, reported in (2010) 15 SCC 283, and would submit that the rejection of request for cross examination by the Assessing Officer will n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 27. A notice under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act was issued to the petitioner on 01.03.2019 and after the filing the return of income by the petitioner, a notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act was also issued by the respondent on 22.08.2019. A detailed proposal listing out the various issues involved in the case along with the additions proposed on those issues were sent to the petitioner (assessee) on 08.11.2019. The scanned images of the relevant seized materials were also sent as attachments. The petitioner was provided time to reply till 21.11.2019. The petitioner on receipt of the proposal from the respondent, dated 08.11.2019, has also sought for one week time to reply to the proposal dated 08.11.2019. The petitioner has submitted his objection to the proposal of the respondent, dated 08.11.2019, only on 02.12.2019. 28. As seen from the impugned assessment orders, adequate opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner by the respondent and only thereafter, the impugned assessment orders for the seven assessment years have been passed. As seen from the impugned assessment orders, each and every objection raised by the petitioner has been conside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been considered by the respondent, who has rejected the same by giving reasons. Whether the reasons for rejection given by the respondent is correct or not cannot be held to be violations of principles of natural justice. If the petitioner is aggrieved, his only remedy is to file the statutory appeal. Therefore, the respondent has adhered to the principles of natural justice by providing a fair hearing and by giving the petitioner sufficient opportunity to raise all the contentions and the respondent has also given reasons for rejecting the objections raised by the petitioner under the impugned assessment orders. 31. Insofar as the new plea raised by the petitioner before this Court that the assessment orders have been passed without authority under Law, since the operation conducted at the premises of the asseesee on 10.08.2017, according to him, is only a survey under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act and not a search under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, is concerned, the said plea taken before this Court is absolutely baseless. Nowhere in the written representation submitted by the petitioner on 08.11.2019 before the respondent, the said plea was taken. In all the rep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case on hand, it is an income tax proceeding before a quasi-judicial authority. A Division Bench of the Madras High Court, in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs Rangroopchand Chordia, reported in 2016 SCC Online Mad 4297 , relied upon by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent, while dealing with Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, similar to the case on hand, has held that loose sheets picked up during search under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, falls within the definition of document , mentioned in Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act and therefore, it has got evidentiary value. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that loose sheets seized during the search under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act does not have any evidentiary value, is rejected by this Court. 35. Insofar as the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the respondent has passed the impugned assessment orders for the year 2018-19 without any authority under law, the said issued is answered in Section 153A of the Income Tax Act itself. Section 153(A)(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act reads as follows: 153A.(1) Notwithstanding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
