TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (2) TMI 116
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 12.08.2022 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. No. 9937/2022 and connected matters. All these appeals are directed against one Shri Sunil Kumar Sharma who is the respondent in W.A. Nos. 830/2022, 831/2022, 832/2022 and 833/2022 and one Shri Kandaswamy Rajendran who is the respondent in W.A. No. 834/2022. The respondents shall hereinafter be referred to as 'the assessee' for brevity. 2. Since all these appeals which have been preferred by the Revenue arise out of a common order dated 12.08.2022 rendered by a learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 9937/2022 and connected petitions, they are heard together and are disposed of by this common order. 3. Heard the arguments advanced by the then learned Addl. Solicitor General Shri Balbir Singh as well as the present learned counsel Sri Y V Raviraj who is on record for appellants in WA. Nos. 830/2022, 831/2022, 832/2022, 833/2022 and 834/2022. We have also heard the arguments advanced by the learned Senior counsel Sri Kiran S Javali for the respondent in W.A. Nos. 830/2022, 831/2022, 832/2022 and 833/2022. Further, we have heard the arguments of the learned counsel Sri A. Mahesh Chowdary for the respondent in W.A. No. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rit petitions as on 23.05.2022 challenging the notice and the order of assessment. 6. Respondents / Assessee, while urging the aforementioned aspects, questioned the impugned notices calling upon Assessee herein to submit his returns of income for the Assessment Year 2015-2016, as without jurisdiction. The main grievance of the respondents is that impugned notices under Section 153C of the Act is to be issued on "other person" and the respondents being "searched person", the impugned notice under Section 153C of the Act is not maintainable. Hence, the impugned order by the Commissioner of Income Tax in the CIT(A) was challenged through Writ Petition No. 9937/2022 & connected matters before a learned Single Judge of this High Court. Further, aggrieved by the common order of the learned Single Judge of this High Court, the Appellant/Revenue has come before this Division Bench challenging the order of the learned Single Judge as non-est and contrary to law. 7. The learned Single Judge, by its order dated 12.08.2022, has allowed all the writ petitions and has quashed the respective impugned notices issued including the further proceedings and has thereafter remanded the matter to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n various grounds. 9. The then learned ASG contends that after the appearance of the Revenue, no arguments were addressed on behalf of the Assessee. Since the learned Single Judge had indicated that the Revenue was to argue regarding the order of assessment being passed without considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CBI vs. V.C. SHUKLA ((1998 3 SCC 410)) and COMMON CAUSE vs. UNION OF INDIA ((2017) 11 SCC 731)), the arguments were addressed by the Revenue only on the said issue. However, the learned Single Judge has proceeded to address various other issues raised in the writ petitions which were not at all argued, without considering the Statement of objections filed by the Revenue in response to the contentions raised in the writ petitions. Hence, it is contended that the order of the learned Single Judge is in violation of the principles of natural justice and is liable to be set aside. 10. It is contended that neither the revenue nor the assessee had argued before the learned Single Judge regarding the transfer of jurisdiction under Section 127 of the IT Act, maintainability of the writ petition, correctness of initiation of proceedings u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....remains in Bangalore only. Hence, the order of the learned Single Judge is without proper appreciation of the facts aspects, which is liable to be set aside. 13. It is further pointed out that the objection filed by the assessee dated 18.11.2019 for issuance of notice under Section 153C of the IT Act was disposed of on 28.11.2019. Subsequently, the assessee participated in the assessment proceedings and the same came to be concluded by order dated 31.12.2019. It is contended that in view of Section 124(3)(c) of the IT Act, the assessee is not entitled to question the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer, after expiry of one month from the date of notice or assessment order, whichever is earlier. Though specific contention has been raised on this issue, the learned Single Judge has not recorded any finding on this aspect. Hence, it is contended that the order of the learned Single Judge without consideration of the various contentions raised in the Statement of objection, is liable to be set aside. 14. The then learned Addl ASJ specifically contended that, satisfaction as required under Section 132 of the IT Act was recorded in respect of Shri D.K. Shivakumar and in view of s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court which has been relied on by the learned single judge, in the case of VC Shukla and Common Cause, the seized diary would fall within the ambit of books of accounts and holding the diary as not admissible evidence is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. On all these grounds, learned counsel for the appellant / Revenue prayed to allow the appeals and thereby to set aside the order of the learned Single Judge. 18. The Respondents in this Writ Appeal entered appearance and vehemently contended that the Appellant / Revenue Authorities have concluded that the income that has escaped assessment and notice under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are solely issued on "loose sheets" and are termed as "Dairies" during the search, which does not come under the ambit of "book of entry" or as evidence under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Hence, it is contended that the said evidence is not corroborative to show that such loose sheets found are connected to the petitioner or to the occupation of the petitioners. The Panchanama further vouches for such lack of evidence. In this regard, they have further relied on the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ents extensively. On hearing the learned counsel for both the parties, this Court finds it relevant to examine the following questions that arises for consideration in these writ appeals, which are as under: 1) Whether 'Loose Sheets' and 'Diary' have any evidentiary value? 2) Whether Centralization is in violation of Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is valid? 3) Whether the Notice under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is valid herein? As regards Question No. 1: Upon reading the material provided and the order of the learned Single Judge delivered on 12.08.2022, it is evident that the income that has escaped assessment and notices under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were solely issued based on loose sheets and documents which are termed as 'diaries' found during the search. The applicability of Section 69A of the Act arises only when the principles laid down under Section 68 of the Act are satisfied. Section 68 states that there must be books of accounts or any books with credit entry. The said Act reads thus: "Section 68: Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he ways referred to in the provisions of the Act relating to the relevancy of facts; and those provisions are to be found in Section 6 to 55 appearing in Chapter II. Section 5, with which Chapter II opens, expressly provides that evidence may be given in any suit or proceeding of the existence or non-existence of every fact in issue and the facts declared relevant in the aforesaid section, and of no others. Section 34 of the Act reads as under:- "34. Entries in books of account when relevant - Entries in book of account, regularly kept in the course of business, are relevant whenever they refer to a matter into which the court has to inquire but such statements shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability." 17. From a plain reading of the Section it is manifest that to make an entry relevant thereunder it must be shown that it has been made in a book, that book is a book of account and that book of account has been regularly kept in the course of business. From the above Section it is also manifest that even if the above requirements are fulfilled and the entry becomes admissible as relevant evidence, still, the statement made therein....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 34, but not the loose sheets of papers contained in the two files (MR 72/91 and MR 73/91)." 25. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of COMMON CAUSE AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA, reported in (2017) 11 SCC 731, at paragraphs 278 to 282 of the judgment, has observed thus: "278. With respect to the kind of materials which have been placed on record, this Court in V.C. Shukla case has dealt with the matter though at the stage of discharge when investigation had been completed by same is relevant for the purpose of decision of this case also. This court has considered the entries in Jain Hawala Diaries, note books and file containing loose sheets of papers not in the form of "books of accounts" and has held that such entries in loose papers/sheets are irrelevant and not admissible under Section 34 of the Evidence Act, and that only where the entries are made in the books of accounts regularly kept, depending on the nature of occupation, that those are admissible. 279. It has further been laid down in V.C. Shukla case as to value of entries in the books of account, that such statements shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....books in question did not reflect any such relationship and, on the contrary, only contained entries of monies received from one set of persons and payment thereof to another set of persons it could not be said, by any stretch of imagination that they were books of account, argued Mr. Sibal. He next contended that even if it was assumed for argument's sake that the above books were books of account relating to a business still they would not be admissible under Section 34 as they were not regularly kept. It was urged by him that the words 'regularly kept' mean that the entries in the books were contemporaneously made at the time the transactions took place but a cursory glance of the books would show that the entries were made therein long after the purported transactions took place. In support of his contentions he also relied upon the dictionary meanings of the words 'account' and 'regularly kept'. 281. With respect to evidentiary value of regular account book, this Court has laid down in V.C. Shukla, thus: (SCC p.433, para 37) "37. In Beni Vs. Bisan Dayal [ A. I. R 1925 Nagpur 445] it was observed that entries in book s of account ar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....trary to law, which require to be set aside in these writ appeals, as the same are void and illegal. 27. As regards the further question as to, 2) Whether Centralization is in violation of Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is valid: On a perusal of the writ papers, it indicates that the Appellant / Revenue conducted a search at the premises of one Sri Rajendran at New Delhi and recovered certain diaries/loose sheets, which purportedly consisted certain entries relating to the affairs/transactions of the assessee. Based on the statement of the said Sri Rajendran (Petitioner in Writ petition No. 9946 of 2022) recorded during the investigation, Appellant/Revenue initiated action against the assessee / Sunil Kumar Sharma. In this regard, the Appellant/Revenue, by exercising power under Section 127 of the Act, transferred the case to the Commissioner of Income Tax by virtue of Section 127 of the Act which provides for power to transfer cases. Relevant provision is Section 127(1) of the Act and same is extracted below: "Section 127(1): The Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t. These points are transpired from the following Judgments: i) M/S AJANTHA INDUSTRIES & ORS VS CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, NEW DELHI & ORS ((1976) 1 SCC 1001)): "Once an order is passed transferring the case file of an assessee to another area the order has to be communicated. Communication of the order is an absolutely essential requirement since the assessee is then immediately made aware of the reasons which impelled the authorities to pass the order of transfer. (Para 9) Under Section 127(1) the reason for recording of reasons in the order and making these reasons known to the assessee is to enable an opportunity to the assessee to approach the High Court under its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution or even the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution in an appropriate case for challenging the order, inter alia, either on the ground that it is mala fide or arbitrary or that it is based on irrelevant and extraneous considerations. Whether such writ or special leave application ultimately fails is not relevant for a decision of the question. (Para 10) So the requirement of recording reasons under Section 127(....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sitioned shall be handed over to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person and that Assessing Officer shall proceed against each such other person and issue notice and assess or reassess the income of the other person in accordance with the provisions of section 153A, if, that Assessing Officer is satisfied that the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned have a bearing on the determination of the total income of such other person for six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted or requisition is made and for the relevant assessment year or years referred to in sub-section (1) of section 153A: Provided that in case of such other person, the reference to the date of initiation of the search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132A in the second proviso to sub-section (1) of section 153A shall be construed as reference to the date of receiving the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person : Provided further that the Central Government ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ax Act, 1961. The searched person in the instant case is the petitioner, as the search was conducted in his premises, which is evident from the Panchanama. The distinction between 'searched person' and 'other person' is misinterpreted in the case advanced by the Appellant-Revenue, as the premises of the Respondent was searched and documents pertaining to him were seized, thereby making him the searched person. The stipulated conditions have not been satisfied in the instant case. 31. It is relevant to refer to a judgment in the case of SUPER MALLS (P.) LTD VS PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 8, (MANU/SC/0724/2020), wherein the Apex court has dealt with the proposition in detail, which reads thus: "5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties at length. 5.1. As observed hereinabove, the short question which is posed for the consideration of this Court is, whether there is a compliance of the provisions of Section 153C of the Act by the Assessing Officer and all the conditions which are required to be fulfilled before initiating the proceedings Under Section 153C of the Act have been satisfied or not? 6. This Court had an occasi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the other person, to make a note in the file of a searched person, will not vitiate the entire proceedings Under Section 153C of the Act against the other person. At the same time, the satisfaction note by the Assessing Officer of the searched person that the documents etc. so seized during the search and seizure from the searched person belonged to the other person and transmitting such material to the Assessing Officer of the other person is mandatory. However, in the case where the Assessing Officer of the searched person and the other person is the same, it is sufficient by the Assessing Officer to note in the satisfaction note that the documents seized from the searched person belonged to the other person. Once the note says so, then the requirement of Section 153C of the Act is fulfilled. In case, where the Assessing Officer of the searched person and the other person is the same, there can be one satisfaction note prepared by the Assessing Officer, as he himself is the Assessing Officer of the searched person and also the Assessing Officer of the other person." 32. Be that as it may, it is relevant to once again refer to the facts in these appeals relating to challengi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d on the material found and seized by the Enforcement Directorate. Further, the writ petition was not maintainable as the impugned order passed in the writ petition is appealable before the Commissioner of Income Tax-Appeals, which is an efficacious remedy for the petitioners. Hence, the Revenue sought to dismiss the writ petitions as premature. It was further contended that the officer authorised under Section 132 of the IT Act, is empowered to enter and search any building, place, vessel, vehicle or Aircraft where he has reason to suspect such books of account, other documents, money, etc. Further that Section 132 of the Act, empowers seizure or books of account/document not only relatable to searched person, however, in relation to other person also. The Assessing Officer, after compliance of the pre-conditions of recording statement after satisfaction, issued notice under Section 153C of the Act, and therefore, sought for dismissal of Writ Petitions. It was further clarified that Section 132(1) of the Act, provides for "person specific and not premises specific" and therefore, the determinative factor is the person against whom the warrant of search is issued under Section 132 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ND OTHERS, reported in (1998)3 SCC 410 and in the case of COMMON CAUSE AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA, reported in (2017)11 SCC 731 and accordingly, sought for quashing of impugned notices. 36. Further, learned Senior Counsel argued that satisfaction note is required under Section 153C of the Act for each Assessment Year and in the impugned proceedings, consolidated satisfaction note has been recorded for different Assessment Years which vitiates entire assessment proceedings. In this regard, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of L K VERMA v. HMT AND ANOTHER, reported in (2006)2 SCC 269 and in the case of JEANS KNIT PVT LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, reported in (2017)390 ITR 10 (SC) and argued that this Court is having jurisdiction to interfere with the impugned notices issued by the Revenue as the same is without jurisdiction and hence sought for interference of this court in those writ petitions. 37. As regards Writ Petition No. 9945 of 2022 is concerned, Sri Kiran S. Javali, learned Senior Counsel had argued that the petitioner therein has preferred appeal under Section 250 of the Act and the respondent No. 1, by order dated 03rd Ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... learned Additional Solicitor General contended that the judgments referred to by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, viz. V.C. SHUKLA (supra) and in the case of COMMON CAUSE AND OTHERS (supra) are not applicable to the facts of the present case. Emphasizing on these aspects, he referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of V.C. SHUKLA (supra) and argued that the factual aspects in the said case is quite different from the present case and accordingly, it was argued that Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 39. Shri Balbir Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General, further argued that Section 132 of the Act is a Code in itself which provides for search and seizure by the respondent-Revenue as the authorities, based on the incriminating material, have reason to believe in the custody of defaultee. In this regard, learned Additional Solicitor General had referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of P.R. METRANI v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE reported in (2007)1 SCC 789 and particularly referred to paragraph 17 of the judgment. Further, the learned Additi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r discussions above is Rs. 40 lakh for AY-2015-16." (emphasis supplied) 41. The learned Single Judge had also referred to the celebrated decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of TATA CELLULAR v. UNION OF INDIA reported in (1994)6 SCC 651. Though the matter pertained to the action of the Administrative Authority, it was held that the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the said judgment is aptly applicable to the facts of the case on hand. The relevant Paragraphs 74 to 81 of the said judgment reads thus: "74. Judicial review is concerned with reviewing not the merits of the decision in support of which the application for judicial review is made, but the decision- making process itself. 75. In Chief Constable of the North Wales Police v. Evans (1982) 3 All ER 141, 154 Lord Brightman said : "Judicial review, as the words imply, is not an appeal from a decision, but a review of the manner in which the decision was made. Judicial review is concerned, not with the decision, but with the decision-making process. Unless that restriction on the power of the court is observed, the court will in my view, under the guise of prev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2. Committed an error of law, 3. Committed a breach of the rules of natural justice, 4. Reached a decision which no reasonable tribunal would have reached or, 5. Abused its powers. Therefore, it is not for the court to determine whether a particular policy or particular decision taken in the fulfilment of that policy is fair. It is only concerned with the manner in which those decisions have been taken. The extent of the duty to act fairly will vary from case to case. Shortly put, the grounds upon which an administrative action is subject to control by judicial review can be classified as under: (i) Illegality : This means the decision- maker must understand correctly the law that regulates his decision-making power and must give effect to it. (ii) Irrationality, namely, Wednesday unreasonableness. (iii) Procedural impropriety. The above are only the broad grounds but it does not rule out addition of further grounds in course of time. As a matter of fact, in R.V. SECRETARY OF STATE for the Home Department, ex Brind (1991) 1 AC 696, Lord Diplock refers specifically to one development, namely, the possibl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of reasonable men. Lord Russell emphasised that a bye-law is not unreasonable just because particular judges might think it went further than was prudent or necessary or convenient. In 1947 the Court of Appeal confirmed a similar approach for the review of executive discretion generally in Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corpn. This case was concerned with a complaint by the owners of a cinema in Wednesbury that it was unreasonable of the local authority to licence performances on Sunday only subject to a condition that 'no children under the age of 15 years shall be admitted to any entertainment whether accompanied by an adult or not'. In an extempore judgment, Lord Greene, M.R. drew attention to the fact that the word 'unreasonable' had often been used in a sense which comprehended different grounds of review. (At p. 229, where it was said that the dismissal of a teacher for having red hair (cited by Warrington, L.J. in Short v. Poole Corpn., as an example of a 'frivolous and foolish reason') was, in another sense, taking into consideration extraneous matters, and might be so unreasonable that it could almost be desc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o other facets of irrationality may be mentioned. (1) It is open to the court to review the decision-maker's evaluation of the facts. The court will intervene where the facts taken as a whole could not logically warrant the conclusion of the decision-maker. If the weight of facts pointing to one course of action is overwhelming, then a decision the other way, cannot be upheld. Thus, in Emma Hotels Ltd. v. Secretary of State for Environment34, the Secretary of State referred to a number of factors which led him to the conclusion that a non-resident's bar in a hotel was operated in such a way that the bar was not an incident of the hotel use for planning purposes, but constituted a separate use. The Divisional Court analysed the factors which led the Secretary of State to that conclusion and, having done so, set it aside. Donaldson, L.J. said that he could not see on what basis the Secretary of State had reached his conclusion. (2) A decision would be regarded as unreasonable if it is impartial and unequal in its operation as between different classes. On this basis in R. v. Bernet London Borough Council, ex p Johnson the condition imposed by a local authority prohib....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as evidence, the second part speaks, in a negative way, of its evidentiary value for charging a person with a liability. It will, therefore, be necessary for us to first ascertain whether the entries in the documents, with which we are concerned, fulfil the requirements of the above section so as to be admissible in evidence and if this question is answered in the affirmative then only its probative value need be assessed. 18. "Book" ordinarily means a collection of sheets of paper or other material, blank, written, or printed, fastened or bound together so as to form a material whole. Loose sheets or scraps of paper cannot be termed as 'book' for they can be easily detached and replaced. In dealing with the work 'book' appearing in Section 34 in Mukundram vs. Dayaram [AIR 1914 Nagpur 44], a decision on which both sides have placed reliance, the Court observed:- "In its ordinary sense it signifies a collection of sheets of paper bound together in a manner which cannot be disturbed or altered except by tearing apart. The binding is of a kind which is not intended to the moveable in the sense of being undone and put together again. A collection of pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... contrary to the law declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court referred to above, in that view of the matter, it is trite law that the acceptance of writ petitions, despite having alternative remedy, is a rule of practice and not of jurisdiction and in this regard, the Division Bench of this Court in the case of U.M. RAMESH RAO AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA reported in 2021(3) AKR 345 at paragraphs 40 and 41 of the judgment has observed thus: "40. The following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the aspect of maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the face of an alternative remedy are referred to as under: (a) In Veerappa Pillai vs. Raman and Raman Ltd.., [AIR 1952 SC 192], it was observed that where a particular statute provides a self-contained machinery for determination of questions arising under the Act, the remedy that is provided under the Act should be followed except in cases of acts, which are wholly without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction, or in violation of principles of natural justice or refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested in them or there is an error on the face of the record and such act, om....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....an alternative remedy has been consistently held not to operate as a bar in at least four contingencies, namely, where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. In the said decision, reliance was also placed on Rashid Ahmad vs. Municipal Board, Kairana, [AIR 1950 SC 163], (Rashid Ahmad), to observe that where alternative remedy existed, it would be a sound exercise of discretion to refuse to interfere in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. This proposition was, however, qualified by the significant words, "unless there are good grounds therefor", which indicated that alternative remedy would not operate as an absolute bar and that writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution could still be entertained in exceptional circumstances. Reference was also made to State of U.P. vs. Mohd. Nooh, , [AIR 1958 SC 86], (Mohd. Nooh), wherein it was observed that the rule requiring the exhaustion of statutory remedies before the writ will be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....igh Court should ensure that he has made out a strong case or that there exist good grounds to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction. The Court, in extraordinary circumstances, may exercise the power if it comes to the conclusion that there has been a breach of principles of natural justice or procedure required for decision has not been adopted. The rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction by availability of alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion and the Court must consider the pros and cons of the case and then may interfere. However, there are well recognized exceptions to the doctrine of exhaustion of statutory remedies. First is, when the proceedings are taken before the forum under a provision of law which is ultra vires, it is open to a party aggrieved thereby to move the High Court for quashing the proceedings on the ground that they are incompetent without a party being obliged to wait until those proceedings run their full course. Secondly, the doctrine has no application when the impugned order has been made in violation of the principles of natural justice. Also, that where the proceedings itself are an abuse of process of law the Hi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ircumstances. In the said case, there is an exposition on the well recognised exceptions to the self-imposed restraint of the High Courts, namely, in cases where a statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available, or there is lack of jurisdiction on the part of the statutory/quasi-judicial authority against whose order judicial review is sought. It was observed that an "error of jurisdiction" was always distinguished from "in excess of jurisdiction", till the judgment of the House of Lords in Anisminic Ltd. Vs. Foreign Compensation Commission [(1969) 2 WLR 163] (Anisminic). In Anisminic, the real question was not, whether, an authority made a wrong decision but whether they enquired into and decided a matter on which they had no right to consider. It was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that just four days before the House of Lords delivered the judgment in Anisminic, an identical view was taken by a three judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in West Bengal & Others vs. Sachindra Nath Chatterjee & Another, [(1969) 3 SCR 92], (Sachindra Nath Chatterjee) wherein the view taken by the Full Bench of Calcutta High Court in Hirday Nath Roy vs. Ramachandra Bar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eliance on Authorised Officer, State Bank of Travancore and another vs. Mathew K.C. [(2018) 3 SCC 85], (Mathew K.C.) wherein it was observed that SARFAESI Act is a complete Code by itself, providing for expeditious recovery of dues arising out of loans granted by financial institutions. The remedy of appeal by the aggrieved under Section 17 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, followed by a right to appeal before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 18 was adequately provided under the Act. Therefore, the High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition in view of the adequate alternative statutory remedies available. In that case, an interim order granted by the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, staying further proceedings at the stage of Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, on certain deposit to be made was questioned. It was observed that the writ petition ought not have been entertained and interim order granted for the mere asking without assigning special reasons, that too, without even granting opportunity to the other side to contest the maintainability of the writ petition and failure to notice the subsequent developments i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt can exercise jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which a DRT or DRAT is empowered by or under the Act to determine and no injunction can be granted by any court or authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under the Act." 45. In the given facts and circumstances of the case and also issues involved between the Revenue and the assessee respectively, normally, the High Court should not entertain writ petitions unless it is shown that there is something more in a case, something going to the root of the jurisdiction of the officer, something which would show that it would be a case of palpable injustice to the writ petitioner to force him to adopt the remedies provided by the statute. But, if the High Court had entertained a petition despite availability of an alternative remedy, it would not be justifiable for the High Court to dismiss the same on the ground of non-exhaustion of statutory remedies, unless the High Court finds that factual disputes are involved and it would not be desirable to deal with them in a writ petition. The learned Single Judge had referred to a plethora of deci....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anding the matter to the respondent-Revenue to reconsider the issue afresh in terms of the discussion made above. 48. In the given facts and circumstances of the matter, it is relevant to refer to the case of NISHANT CONSTRUCTION (P) LTD. Vs. ACIT (ITA NO. 1502/AHD/2015), wherein it is held that, in the absence of any corroborative evidence, loose sheet can at the most be termed as "dumb document" which did not contain full details about the dates, and its contents were not corroborated by any material and could not be relied upon and made the basis of addition. Reliance can also be placed on the judgment of the Panaji Bench of ITAT in the case of ABHAY KUMAR BHARAMGOUDA PATIL vs. ASSTT. CIT ((2018) 96 taxmann.com 377)), wherein the judgment of the Apex Court was relied upon. 49. It is further relevant to refer to a Co-ordinate Bench decision of this Court rendered in the case of PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SMT. G. LAKSHMI ARUNA ((2023) 150 taxmann.com 107 (Karnataka)) 31.03.2023, in which judgment, this Court has extensively addressed the scope of Sections 153C read with Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The headnote of the said judgment reads thus: ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... which is also supported by various judgments of the High Court. Further, the notice as regards the Assessment years 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 are also not applicable, as the total addition of income were made on the basis of loose sheets. Further, the panchanama or mahazar of all the loose sheets said to have been seized from the house of Shri Rajendran, are now unavailable and the learned counsel for the Revenue has no answer for the same. On these premise, the assessment order made for the Assessment years 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19 requires to be quashed. 52. Insofar as the contention as regards cash of Rs. 6.68 having been found in Premises No. B5/201, Safdarjang Enclave, New Delhi during search, as per Section 292C of the IT Act, the presumption in law is that the cash seized belongs to the owner of the house from where it was seized. However, as regards the said cash which was found, the respondent / assessee had filed his Income Tax Return including the said cash as advance tax, and the same was also accepted by the Income Tax Department. Even the cross-examination of all the parties involved also proves that clearly the cash found belonged to Shri Sunil Ku....