The Assessing Officer is not bound by the High Court's judgment, and the petitioner may be permitted to file a response before the Assessing Officer.

AKIL KURESHI, J.

The petitioner has challenged notices issued by the respondent-Assessing Officer produced at Annexes A1 to A6 to the petition in following background:

2. The petitioner is an individual and is doctor by profession. On or around 21.08.2008, a search action was carried out at the premises of one Heart Care Group of Companies. Pursuant to the documents seized during such search, impugned notices under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [‘the Act’ for short] came to be issued to the petitioner concerning the assessment years 2003-04 to 2008-09. The petitioner has challenged these notices on the ground that no document belonging to the petitioner was ever found during such search and that, therefore, the Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to carry out block assessment in case of the petitioner in exercise of powers under Section 153C of the Act. In this context, the petitioner places heavy reliance on the decision of Division Bench of this Court in case of Vijaybhai N. Chandrani v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in 333 ITR 436 in which, the Court while interpreting the terms “belongs or belong to” a person other than a person referred to in Section 153A, held that condition precedent for issuing notice under Section 153C of the Act is that the money, bullion, jewelery or other valuable article or thing or books of account or documents seized or requisitioned should belong to such person. If this requirement is not satisfied, resort cannot be had to the provisions of Section 153C of the Act. The Court drew a distinction between an article or document pertaining to as against belonging to a person.

3. The petitioner also places heavy reliance on the decision of Delhi High Court in case of Pepsi Foods (P) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in [2015] 231 Taxmann 58, in which, similar view is expressed.

4. The Revenue, on the other hand, contends that the writ petition should not be entertained since the petitioner has alternative remedy by first approaching the Assessing Officer and, if aggrieved by the view of Assessing Officer, filing further appeal, as provided under the Act. The Revenue also contends that during the search at the premises of Heart Care Group, sufficient material was collected which would prima facie demonstrate that unaccounted income of the petitioner was invested in the share of the company which, in turn, was utilized for the purchase of land. It is not necessary for us to dwell on these factual aspects. Counsel for the Revenue also contended that the decision of this Court in case of Vijaybhai N. Chandrani v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) no longer operates as a binding precedent. He drew our attention of the decision of Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Vijaybhai N. Chandrani, reported in 357 ITR 713, in which the Supreme Court expressed an opinion that the High Court should not have examined these aspects in a writ petition where the assessee had ample opportunity to controvert various factual aspects before the Assessing Officer and thereafter, to carry the matter in further appeal.

5. In response to the Revenue's last contention, counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that having admitted the writ petition at the final hearing stage, this Court would not dismiss the same only on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. He submitted that the decision of Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Vijaybhai N. Chandrani (supra) does not overrule the ratio of the decision of this Court in case of Vijaybhai N. Chandrani v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (supra). In the present case, the Revenue has not been able to demonstrate even remotely that any document pertaining to the petitioner was found during the search in case of Heart Care group.

6. It is undisputedly true that the very similar issue came up before this Court in case of Vijaybhai N. Chandrani v. Assistant Commissione