TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (7) TMI 262
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r section 153C of the said Act calling upon the petitioner to prepare true and correct return of his total income for the A.Y. 2012-13 in the prescribed form and manner under the Act. The petitioner therefore filed a return of income on 17.09.2019 in response of the said notice. The petitioner thereafter received the notice dated 23.09.2019 issued under section 142(1) of the said Act calling upon the petitioner to furnish the accounts and documents specified in the Annexure in connection with the scrutiny assessment proceedings under section 143(3) read with section 153C of the Act for the A.Y. 2012-13. Along with the said notice dated 23.09.2019, the petitioner also received a certified copy of the reasons recorded in the proceedings under section 153C of the said Act for the assessment year 2012-13 in the case of the petitioner. The petitioner filed objections (Annexure 'C') against the said satisfaction note, which objections came to be disposed of by the respondent vide the order dated 10.10.2019 (Annexure 'D'). The petitioner filed further objections (Annexure 'E') on 17.10.2019, which also came to be rejected by the respondent vide the order dated 30.1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....recourse to the remedy available under the Act. In this regard, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Bhatt has rightly relied upon the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax Gujarat, versus Vijaybhai N. Chandrani (supra), in which it has been observed as under : - "16. In the present case, the assessee has invoked the Writ jurisdiction of the High Court at the first instance without first exhausting the alternate remedies provided under the Act. In our considered opinion, at the said stage of proceedings, the High Court ought not have entertained the Writ Petition and instead should have directed the assessee to file reply to the said notices and upon receipt of a decision from the Assessing Authority, if for any reason it is aggrieved by the said decision, to question the same before the forum provided under the Act. 17. In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the correctness or otherwise of the construction that is placed by the High Court on Section 153C, we set aside the impugned judgment and order. Further, we grant time to the assessee, if it so desires, to file reply/objections, if any, as contemplated in the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n, however, since the learned advocate Mr. Patel has made his submissions on the merits of the petition also, let us examine whether there is any substance in the same. 7. It was sought to be submitted by Mr. D.R. Patel that the entire proceedings had vitiated as the officer who had issued the notice under section 153C was different from the officer who had recorded the satisfaction. In this regard, it may be noted that the learned advocate Mr. Patel has raised this issue orally for the first time during the course of arguments. It was never raised before the respondent at any point of time. It was also not raised in the memorandum of the present petition, and therefore, the respondent had no occasion to deal with the same. The issue which was neither raised before the authority nor in the memorandum of the petition, could not be permitted to be raised for the first time during the course of arguments. 8. Mr. Patel further submitted that the Assessing Officer had recorded the satisfaction on the borrowed information. The said submission of Mr. Patel has no force. In the instant case, the search was carried out under section 132 of the said Act on 06.02.2017 at various locatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issued in the financial year 2018-19, the year in which regular assessment proceedings for the assessment year 2017-18 can only be initiated and no reopen assessment proceedings either under section 147 or 153C of the said Act for the assessment year 2017-18 could be initiated". Again, it may be noted that no such contention was ever raised by the petitioner in the objections twice raised before the Assessing Officer. 10. The learned advocate Mr. Patel further submitted that the respondent had initiated the action against the petitioner on the basis of a mistaken identity as the petitioner had never entered into any such transactions as mentioned in the reasons for recording satisfaction by the respondent, which otherwise pertained to some other Dr. Raju Desai. Again, it may be noted that this contention was not taken up before the respondent authority and has been taken for the first time in the present petition, by way of the affidavit-in-rejoinder. Apart from the fact, that such a contention taken up for the first time in the affidavit-in-rejoinder, cannot be considered, the Court is of the opinion that if the petitioner was not the same Raju Desai, he would not have missed t....