Court overturns assessment orders citing violations of natural justice principles and evidence laws. Fresh assessment ordered.

The court set aside the assessment orders due to violations of natural justice principles, non-compliance with Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, denial of cross-examination rights, non-furnishing of panchanamas, and issuance of mechanical and arbitrary assessment orders. The matter was remanded for a fresh assessment, with directions to allow cross-examination, provide seized materials, comply with evidence laws, and exclude unverifiable statements. The court emphasized the importance of natural justice and allowed the writ petitions without costs, citing the inadequacy of alternative remedies in cases of such violations.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice
2. Non-compliance with Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act
3. Denial of Cross-Examination Rights
4. Non-furnishing of Panchanamas
5. Mechanical and Arbitrary Assessment Orders
6. Alternative Remedy and Maintainability of Writ Petitions

Detailed Analysis:

1. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The petitioners contended that the impugned orders violated the principles of natural justice. They argued that the assessment orders were arbitrary, mechanical, and lacked independent application of mind. Furthermore, the Income Tax Department did not discharge the burden of proof to show that the income determined was based on materials seized during the search. The petitioners emphasized that no incriminating materials were seized during the search, making the assessment orders bad in law. The court found that the non-furnishing of panchanamas disabled the petitioners from knowing the seized materials and alleged incriminating materials relied upon by the department, which is a violation of natural justice.

2. Non-compliance with Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act:
The petitioners argued that the entire assessment was based on secondary evidence of electronic records such as Excel sheets and emails, without complying with the mandatory requirements of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. The court agreed, stating that non-compliance with Section 65B renders the documents inadmissible in the eye of law, as held by the Supreme Court in Anvar P.V. vs. P.K. Basheer.

3. Denial of Cross-Examination Rights:
The petitioners contended that they were deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine individuals whose statements were recorded under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, which were used for making additions/disallowances. The court held that the basic principles of jurisprudence governing the law of evidence cannot be interfered with by the Income Tax Act provisions. The court cited the Supreme Court judgment in Kishan Chand Chellaram, which mandates that the person against whom a statement is used should be given an opportunity to counter and contest the same.

4. Non-furnishing of Panchanamas:
The petitioners argued that they were handicapped in defending the proposals of additions and disallowances due to the non-furnishing of copies of the panchanamas. The court found that the department's refusal to provide all the panchanamas, despite admitting the petitioners' entitlement to them, was unjustifiable. The court emphasized that the department's stand of not furnishing the panchanamas was an after-thought and violated the principles of natural justice.

5. Mechanical and Arbitrary Assessment Orders:
The petitioners pointed out that the assessment orders were mechanical, arbitrary, and a cut-and-paste job from the predetermined show-cause notice. The court agreed, noting that the specific objections raised by the petitioners were not considered, and the statements in the assessment orders were false, demonstrating a mechanical approach.

6. Alternative Remedy and Maintainability of Writ Petitions:
The respondents argued that the writ petitions were not maintainable due to the availability of an alternative remedy under the statute. However, the court held that in cases of violation of principles of natural justice, the alternative remedy cannot be a bar. The court cited the Supreme Court judgment in Maharashtra Chess Association vs. Union of India, which states that the existence of alternative forums does not create a legal bar on the exercise of the writ jurisdiction by a High Court.

Conclusion:
The court set aside the assessment orders and remanded the matter back to the assessing officer for a de novo assessment. The court directed the respondent officer to:
a) Afford an opportunity for cross-examination of individuals whose statements are relied upon.
b) Provide details and copies of all seized materials.
c) Comply with Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act for electronic documents.
d) Exclude statements of the other group unless cross-examination is allowed.
e) Proceed under Section 153C if relying on materials or statements from the other group's premises.

The writ petitions were allowed with these observations and directions, and no costs were imposed.

---