TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 1141X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arched person. Under the circumstances, the petitioner’s contention that notice under section 153C of the Act could not have been issued after search operations were over cannot be accepted. We are not inclined to entertain the writ petition in view of the availability of statutory remedies. Since we relegate the petitioners to remedies under the statute, at this stage, we express no opinion on the validity of the reference. - Special Civil Application No. 30788 of 2007 - - - Dated:- 5-5-2014 - Akil Kureshi And Sonia Gokani, JJ. For the Petitioner : Manish J. Shah, Advocate For the Respondent : Mauna M. Bhatt, Advocate JUDGMENT Akil Kureshi, J. 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 Assessing Officer on 31.7.07 to respondent No.2 the District Valuation Officer to opine on the valuation of certain immovable properties of the petitioner to ascertain the investment made by the petitioner in such properties. The petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 ₹ 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 7 th March, 2006 at our residences and survey conducted on dated 7 th March 2006 at our all business places, certain loose papers/dairies and various other papers/documents were found. Covering all these loose paper/dairies various other papers/documents total disclosure of ₹ 825 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sued 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 provisions for block assessment of undisclosed income of persons other than the searched person. In context of section 158BD of the Act, the Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Calcutta Knitwear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CC 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 assessee. This Court concurred with the findings and conclusions reached by the High Court and dismissed the said appeal with the following observations: 5. This and the oth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
