TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 925X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essments are made on the basis of the search pursuant to a warrant issued in the name of the petitioner or on the basis of a search pursuant to a warrant issued in the name of any other entity is essentially a question of fact. Submission that the petitioner was not served with notices is misconceived inasmuch as the Writ Petitioner/Assessee is a company incorporated under the Companies Act and is just a juristic person and thus the averments which are completely personal and which are on the basis of alleged family disputes cannot have a bearing as to whether the petitioner have been properly served or otherwise This Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petitions as the question raised would require examination of disputed question of facts which is alien to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India more so when there is an effective alternative remedy. The rule of alternate remedy no doubt is a self imposed restraint by Courts exercising writ jurisdiction. In other words, rule of alternate remedy is not a rule of compulsion, but it is a rule of discretion. See judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Authorized Officer, State Bank of Trava ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tionnaire. The Respondent/Assessing Officer proceeded thereafter to complete the assessment by placing reliance upon the statements recorded during the course of search at the residence of Mr. Subramaniam and on the basis of questions put to Mr. Raja (Office Manager of VV Minerals) and Mrs. Chitra. 2.4. For the assessment year 2018-19, the petitioner filed its original returns disclosing Nil income. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS. The reason for scrutiny being substantial increase in share capital of the Petitioner company. Notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued to the petitioner on 23.12.2020 by the Assessing Officer CIT Central Circle 2(4), Bangalore. A notice under Section 142(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee calling for details including the details of increase in share capital. The assessee neither filed any return of income nor furnished the books of accounts and the business income was estimated at 8% of the total receipts i.e. Rs. 10,67,48,620/-. Further, it was found that while the share capital of the petitioner /company increased by Rs.124.6 crores, whereas in the return filed the petitioner / company was shown to be a loss making ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 018 based on the warrant issued by the Principle Director of Income Tax. During the course of the search of the petitioner/ Company premises admittedly, there was no seizure as would be evident from the panchanama drawn on 20.10.2020 which was handed over to the representative of the petitioner who acknowledged the same. 7. There was another search in VV group concerns, of which the petitioner was also a part. Pursuant to the searches made in the premises of the VV group concerns, materials were seized. Assessment was made for the Financial years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 and 2018-19 on the basis of the materials seized during the search of VV Group concerns. In other words, the materials which formed the basis for the assessment where those seized pursuant to the search warrant issued in the name of VV group concerns. It is thus submitted that the respondents were justified in issuing notices under Section 153C of the Act and the submission of the petitioner/ Company that notices must be issued under Section 153A of the Act is misplaced. 8. In the above background question arises as to the maintainability of the present Writ Petitions. This court is not inclined to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The averments from the affidavit of the petitioner reads as under: 8. I am advised that in search proceeding, seizure happends only in respect of some important material and therefore, I must have copy of all seized material before I embark on responding to the show cause notices issued by the respondent... 9. I state that we were able to collect copies of panchanama's only in respect of 11 premises that were searched. My father, Mr. S. Vaikundarajan had many times requested the Respondent to give the details of the 63 premises search in relation to VV group and to give the copies of all seized material, which will be evident from the letters/e-mails my father had sent to the respondent and to his higher authorities. ... 10. I state that till date the respondent has not made available the details of premises searched in relation VV Group and the copies of material seized therefrom. 11. The absense of entire seized material and the dispute between my father's family and my uncle's family has made responding to notices from the respondent in the group cases which are under the control of my father's family, all the more difficult. In this r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
