SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Mad) 373

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ANITA SUMANTH, J.
B. Kubendran - Petitioner
Versus
The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central CIR 2 (1), Investigation Wing, Chennai - Respondent
W.P. Nos. 3023, 3031, 3032, 3033, 3036 & 3037 of 2020 & WMP. Nos. 3540, 3547, 3545, 3550, 3546 & 3549 of 2020
Decided On : 09-04-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Nithyaesh Natraj, Deepan Uday, Advocates.
For the Respondents: A.P. Srinivas, Senior Standing Counsel.

Point of Law: Authorised officer may, during the course of the search or seizure or within a period of sixty days from the date on which the last of the authorisations for search was executed, make a reference to a Valuation Officer referred to in section 142A, who shall estimate the fair market value of the property in the manner provided under that section and submit a report of the estimate to the said officer within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of such reference

Headnote:

Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 - Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 153C, 143(3) , 143(2) , 142(1),158BD 260A, 139 and 148 - Assessment in consequence of a notice - Notice - Principles of natural justice - Assessee on file of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2 (1)/ respondent challenges six orders of assessment passed in terms of provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 - Involved are slightly different learned counsel for petitioner splits impugned orders into two batches being batch being batch - common to both sets of writ petitions are a search was conducted in premises All files relating to the searched entity as well as those associated to him were centralized - Notices under Section 153C were issued - Incidentally petitioner points out that the impugned orders of assessment refer to a notice

Finding of the court: While reference to valuation is in order - Decision making process is flawed and in violation of principles of natural justice - There is no explanation set forth in counter or at the time of hearing to explain why the assessment had been taken up for completion, at the very fag end of limitation and for this reason - Court believe would have been justified, had annulled the assessments, as a second innings is not to be granted to department, merely as a matter of rote. However, and solely as a matter of prudence - Assessments with a direction to the respondent to issue notices afresh, hear petitioner and pass orders of assessments within a period of eight (8) weeks from today

Result: Writ petitions are disposed

JUDGMENT :

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to Writ of Certiorari to challenge the impugned Assessment order passed by the Respondent in DIN:ITBA/AST/M/153C/2019-20/1023498867(1) under Section 143(3) read with Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2012-13 dated 30.12.2019 and to quash the same as illegal, unreasonable, arbitrary and contrary to law.

1. Heard Mr.Nithyesh Natraj, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.A.P.Srinivas, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. In this batch of writ petitions, the petitioner, an assessee on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2 (1)/ respondent challenges six orders of assessment passed in terms of the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’). The years in question are 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015- 16, 2016-17 and 2017-18. For the purposes of argument and since the facts involved are slightly different, the learned counsel for the petitioner splits the impugned orders into two batches, 2012-13, 2014-15 and 2017-18 being batch I and 2015-16, 2016-17 being batch II.

3. The admitted facts in common to both sets of writ petitions are that a search was conducted in the premises of C.Vijayabaskar on 07.04.2017. All files relating to the searched entity as well as those associated to him were centralized on 24.09.2019. Notices under Section 153C were issued on 25.10.2019. Incidentally the petitioner points out that the impugned orders of assessment refer to a notice under Section 143(2) that is stated to have been issued on nil.12.2019. 2 WP.Nos.3023, 3031, 3032, 3033, 3036 & 3037 of 2020

4. However, no notices have, admittedly been issued under Section 143(2) for any of the years in question. If the reference is to notice dated 07.12.2019, this is a questionnaire under Section 142(1) of the Act and not a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. However, nothing turns on this error which is immaterial to decide the legal issue raised. The petitioner filed responses to the questionnaires and after taking note of the same, assessments have come to be completed on 30.12.2019 in terms of Section 143(3) read with Section 153C of the Act.

5. As regards the first set of writ petitions, the issues that are sought to be argued are (i) whether a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act is to be mandatorily issued prior to completion of an assessment in consequence of a notice under Section 153C and (ii) whether the provisions of natural justice have been satisfied in these cases. As regards the second set of writ petitions, in addition to the issues crystallized for batch one, an additional issue raised is as to whether the Assessing Authority was right in relying on a valuation report sought for and obtained by the investigating officer post proceedings for search.

6. I will advert to the above issues in seriatum.

7. On the question of issue of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act, the petitioner relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and another vs. Hotel Bluemoon (321 ITR 362). Assessments in that case had been framed under Section 158BD of the Act and had travelled in appeal to the High Court under Section 260A. One of the two substantial questions raised was whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case the issuance of notice under Section 143 (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 within the prescribed time-limit for the purpose of making the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was mandatory?

8. The scheme of assessment under erstwhile Chapter XIVB of the Act, provided for the framing of assessments for ten previous years prior to the date of search under Section 132 of the Act. Section 158BC provided for assessments to be framed upon the searched person/entity and Section 158BD on persons/entities in relation to whom materials had been found in the course of the search.

9. The determin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top