Court dismisses writ petitions, grants liberty to appeal, stays recovery, no costs awarded

The court rejected the petitioner's arguments on the bar of limitation, violation of principles of natural justice, challenge to the satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Authority, and challenge to the validity of the search. The court dismissed the writ petitions, granting the petitioner liberty to approach the appellate authority within four weeks. The recovery of disputed demands was stayed pending the appeals, with no costs awarded. Connected miscellaneous petitions were also dismissed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Bar of limitation
2. Violation of principles of natural justice
3. Challenge to the satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Authority
4. Challenge to the validity of the search

Detailed Analysis:

1. Bar of Limitation:
The petitioner argued that the assessments were barred by limitation. The court considered and rejected this argument, noting that the limitation period for completion of assessment under Section 153B was extended due to the time taken for exchange of information with overseas authorities. The court found that the extended period of one year was applicable, and the assessments completed on 31.12.2019 were within the permissible time frame. The court also addressed the argument that certain assessments fell outside the block of six years under Section 153C, concluding that the block period was correctly constructed and included the contested years.

2. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The petitioner contended that there was insufficient time for the completion of assessment and that show cause notices were received too close to the assessment date. The court rejected this argument, stating that any deficiency in this regard could be cured by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who has wide powers co-terminus with those of the Assessing Officer.

3. Challenge to the Satisfaction Recorded by the Assessing Authority:
The petitioner challenged the adequacy of the satisfaction note recorded by the Assessing Officer at the time of transferring the seized material for assessment under Section 153C. The court referred to the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Super Malls (P) Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, which held that the satisfaction note only needs to state that the seized documents belong to another person. The court found that the satisfaction note in this case contained all required references to the seized materials and showed proper application of mind by the officer.

4. Challenge to the Validity of the Search:
The petitioner argued that the search was invalid due to defects in the panchanama and the name on the warrant. The court noted that the petitioner had not challenged the veracity of the search in their pleadings and that the appellate authority would be in a better position to appreciate the facts. The court granted the petitioner liberty to approach the first appellate authority by way of statutory appeals, allowing them to raise all grounds except those of limitation and the validity of the satisfaction note. The court also stayed the recovery of disputed demands for six months or until the disposal of the appeals.

Conclusion:
The writ petitions were dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority. The court directed that the appeals be filed within four weeks and stayed the recovery of disputed demands pending the appeals. No costs were awarded, and connected miscellaneous petitions were also dismissed.

---