Legal Requirement to Exhaust Statutory Remedies Before Judicial Intervention Upheld

The court upheld the validity of the notice issued under section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the reference to the District Valuation Officer for property valuation. It emphasized the necessity of exhausting statutory remedies before seeking judicial intervention, citing previous cases where premature writ petitions were dismissed. The petitioner's challenge was declined, directing them to address concerns through appropriate statutory channels. The court clarified that objections regarding the notice and reference could be raised before the relevant forum. The petition was disposed of, with interim relief vacated, stressing adherence to statutory procedures and exhaustion of available remedies before seeking judicial relief.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to notice under section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and reference made to District Valuation Officer for valuation of immovable properties.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a civil construction firm, challenged a notice issued under section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and a reference to the District Valuation Officer for valuation of properties. The notice was based on a search operation on Rajhans group of companies, where unaccounted income was disclosed. The satisfaction note recorded by the respondent indicated that the unaccounted income belonged to the petitioner, justifying the notice. The petitioner contended that the satisfaction lacked evidence and was recorded after the search, making the notice invalid. The court noted that section 153C allows assessment of income of persons other than the searched individual, and the notice could be issued post-search. Citing precedents, the court declined to interfere at this stage, emphasizing the availability of statutory remedies.

The court referenced the Supreme Court's stance on the validity of notice under section 153C, highlighting the need to exhaust statutory remedies before seeking judicial intervention. The court cited cases where writ petitions were dismissed due to premature filing without exhausting alternative remedies. Emphasizing the importance of following statutory procedures, the court declined to entertain the writ petition, directing the petitioner to address concerns through appropriate statutory channels. The court clarified that the petitioner could raise objections regarding the notice and reference before the relevant forum, without expressing an opinion on their validity. The petition was disposed of, with interim relief vacated, maintaining the need to follow statutory procedures and exhaust available remedies before seeking judicial intervention.

---