Court upholds Income Tax Act assessment orders for 2012-13 to 2018-19, dismisses writ petitions

The court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the assessment orders under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, finding no violation of natural justice principles. It upheld the legality of the assessment orders for the financial years 2012-13 to 2018-19, confirming the authority of the respondent to pass the orders for 2018-19. The court deemed the loose sheets seized during the search to have evidentiary value and held that the writ petitions were not maintainable due to the availability of statutory appellate remedies. The petitioner was granted liberty to file a statutory appeal within two weeks.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of impugned assessment orders under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Alleged violation of principles of natural justice.
3. Evidentiary value of loose sheets seized during the search.
4. Authority of the respondent to pass assessment orders for the year 2018-19.
5. Maintainability of the writ petitions in light of alternative statutory appellate remedies.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of Impugned Assessment Orders:
The petitioner challenged the assessment orders for the financial years 2012-13 to 2018-19, passed under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondent conducted a search under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act on 10.08.2017 at the premises of the petitioner’s late father, who was a partner in various firms. The petitioner argued that the statements obtained from his late father under coercion and the incomplete data retrieved from the newly installed software should not be used against him. The respondent countered that the search was conducted legally, and the statements recorded under Section 132(4) have evidentiary value.

2. Alleged Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The petitioner contended that the assessment orders were passed without affording adequate opportunity of hearing, violating the principles of natural justice. The respondent, however, provided a detailed account of the notices issued and opportunities given to the petitioner to present his case. The court examined whether a fair hearing was provided and found that adequate opportunity was given, and the objections raised by the petitioner were considered by the respondent.

3. Evidentiary Value of Loose Sheets:
The petitioner argued that the loose sheets confiscated during the search lacked evidentiary value, relying on the Supreme Court decision in CBI vs V.C. Shukla. The respondent countered that the loose sheets are admissible under Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, supported by the decision of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs Rangroopchand Chordia. The court agreed with the respondent, stating that the loose sheets fall within the definition of “document” under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act and have evidentiary value.

4. Authority to Pass Assessment Orders for 2018-19:
The petitioner contended that the respondent lacked the authority to pass assessment orders for the year 2018-19 since the search was conducted on 10.08.2017, and the assessment for 2018-19 was not completed. The respondent clarified that under Section 153A(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, the assessment can be made for six preceding assessment years and the relevant assessment year. The court upheld this interpretation, confirming the respondent’s authority to pass the assessment orders for 2018-19.

5. Maintainability of Writ Petitions:
The respondent argued that the writ petitions were not maintainable due to the availability of an alternative statutory appellate remedy under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act. The court agreed, referencing the Supreme Court decision in Commissioner of Income Tax vs Chhabil Das Agarwal, which emphasized the need to exhaust statutory remedies before approaching the court. The court dismissed the writ petitions, granting the petitioner liberty to file a statutory appeal within two weeks.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petitions, finding no violation of principles of natural justice and confirming the legality of the impugned assessment orders. The petitioner was granted liberty to file a statutory appeal under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act within two weeks.

---