Court dismisses petition challenging Income Tax Act notices; petitioner advised to exhaust appeal remedies before approaching court.

The court disposed of the writ petition challenging notices under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and Section 143(2) for Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2017-18. The court refrained from assessing the merits of the notices, noting that assessment orders had been finalized for some years with nil assessments. It emphasized that the petitioner could appeal against the assessment orders and should exhaust available remedies before approaching the court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner's rights and contentions were left open for determination in the appellate proceedings.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to notices issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Section 143(2) for Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2017-18.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged the notices issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and Section 143(2) for the Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2017-18 as void. The notices were issued following a search and seizure operation in the case of 'Sukhija Group'. Subsequently, satisfaction was recorded that the seized information related to the petitioner. The petitioner contended that the notices were not based on the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer but on directions from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in proceedings against the petitioner's mother. The petitioner also argued that being a minor during certain assessment years, no notice could have been issued for those years.

2. The respondent informed the court that assessment orders for the relevant years had been finalized, with nil assessments for some years. Consequently, the legal objections raised by the petitioner regarding the void notices for certain assessment years were no longer relevant. Demand was assessed for the remaining years under Section 153C of the Act. The court noted that the challenge to these assessment orders required a factual examination and that the petitioner had the option to appeal against them.

3. The court refrained from delving into the merits of the assessment orders, leaving the rights and contentions of the petitioner to be addressed in the appellate proceedings. The judgment cited the Supreme Court's position that the Act provides a mechanism for assessment, penalty imposition, and obtaining relief, emphasizing that parties should exhaust available remedies before approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

4. Consequently, the court disposed of the writ petition and related applications, leaving the petitioner's rights and contentions open for determination in the appellate proceedings as per the law. The judgment highlighted the importance of following the statutory appeal process rather than bypassing it to seek relief directly from the High Court.

---