2023 (3) TMI 1488 - HC - Income Tax

Jurisdiction Transfer Challenge Dismissed; Court Sets Timeline for Reassessment Proceedings Under Income Tax Act.

Kamal Nath Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax

The SC dismissed the petitioner's challenge to the jurisdiction transfer in reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, ... Notices issued u/s 153C - Reliance on incriminating material found in the search and survey action carried against entities and private individuals - petitioner’s objections are pending consideration with respondent no. 1 - as argued satisfaction note was furnished after the writ petitions were filed, and, therefore, it does not form a part of the record presently made available - HELD THAT:- The concerned officer of the respondents/revenue will dispose of the objections dated 24.03.2023 submitted by the petitioner. The concerned officer will also grant a hearing to the petitioner and/or to his authorized representative and shall issue a notice, in this behalf, which will set forth the date and time of the hearing. Likewise, insofar as the satisfaction note concerning AY 2020-21 is concerned, the petitioner will file his objections within two (2) weeks commencing from today. The concerned officer will, thereafter, fix a date and time for according hearing vis-à-vis the said satisfaction note. Needless to state, with respect to the objections dated 24.03.2023 and the satisfaction note concerning AY 2020-21, the concerned officer will pass a speaking order; copies of which will be furnished to the petitioner. As before the concerned officer proceeds further in the matter, he will furnish all the material, if not already furnished, to the petitioner. It is made clear that that no precipitate action will be taken against the petitioner till six (6) weeks from the date of the passing of the order have elapsed. In case an order is passed which is adverse to the interest of the petitioner, the petitioner will have the liberty to take recourse to an appropriate remedy, as per law. Mr Tankha, on instructions, says that no objection will be taken by the petitioner, with regard to the fact the limitation qua the reassessment proceedings initiated pursuant to the impugned Section 153C notices expired on 21/22.04.2023. In case proceedings against the petitioner are not dropped, the respondents/revenue will have liberty to pass an assessment order within eight (8) weeks, after the period of six (6) weeks expires from the date of disposal of objections preferred by the petitioner. Issues involved: Challenge to notice under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for various Assessment Years (AYs) 2010-11 to 2020-21.AYs 2010-11 to 2020-21:- A search and survey action conducted against entities and individuals led to reassessment proceedings against the petitioner based on incriminating material.- Transfer of petitioner's cases from one jurisdiction to another was challenged by the petitioner but ultimately dismissed by the Supreme Court.- Withdrawal and re-issuance of notice under Section 153C for AY 2020-21.- Pending objections by the petitioner for AYs 2010-11 to 2020-21.- Delay in furnishing satisfaction note for AY 2020-21 raised by petitioner.- Directions issued for disposal of objections, granting a hearing, and filing objections within two weeks.- No precipitate action against petitioner for six weeks.- Liberty granted to petitioner for appropriate remedy in case of adverse order.- Acknowledgement of limitation expiry for reassessment proceedings.- Timeframe provided for passing assessment order if proceedings are not dropped.This judgment addressed the challenge to a notice issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for multiple Assessment Years (AYs) ranging from 2010-11 to 2020-21. The reassessment proceedings were triggered by incriminating material discovered during a search and survey action against specific entities and individuals. Despite the petitioner's objections and legal battles regarding the transfer of jurisdiction, the Supreme Court upheld the decision. There were instances of withdrawal and re-issuance of notices, delays in furnishing satisfaction notes, and pending objections for certain AYs. The court directed the disposal of objections, granted a hearing, and set a deadline for filing objections. Additionally, a timeline was established to prevent immediate action against the petitioner and allow for the exploration of legal remedies if necessary. The judgment also acknowledged the expiration of the limitation period for reassessment proceedings and provided a timeframe for passing an assessment order if the proceedings were not dropped within a specified period.