Plasseri Pulikkal Muhammed Ali V. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Kozhikode and The Principal Director of Income Tax (Inv) Kochi

WP(C)/6756/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Plasseri Pulikkal Muhammed Ali, a businessman engaged in the manufacture and retail of gold jewelry under the brand 'Dubai Gold', who filed a writ petition against the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and the Principal Director of Income Tax (Inv) Kochi. The petitioner sought to defer the assessment under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act for the assessment years 2011-2023 until the assessments for the same years in his case and the Dubai Gold Group of Companies under Section 147 were completed. The court had previously addressed related grievances in another writ petition, leading to the current petition being dismissed on grounds of res-judicata and abuse of process.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 676943 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 21-02-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: W.P(C) No.7829/2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SUSIE VARGHESE
• Assessee Lawyers: M P SHAMEEM AHAMED AKHIL PHILIP MANITHOTTYIL DANIYA RASHEED PALLIAYALIL
• Keywords: Assessment proceedings; Constructive Res Judicata; Income Tax; Res Judicata; Search and seizure; Writ petition
• Section: 142(1); 153C

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 2ND PHALGUNA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 6756 OF 2024 PETITIONER: PLASSERI PULIKKAL MUHAMMED ALI, AGED 63 YEARS S/O MUHAMMED (LATE), RESIDING AT A11A, BENZEER MANZIL, KUTTOOR POST, AR NAGAR, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676305 BY ADVS. M.P.SHAMEEM AHAMED AKHIL PHILIP MANITHOTTIYIL DANIYA RASHEED PALLIYALIL RESPONDENTS: 1 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, NORTH BLOCK, NEW ANNEXE BUILDING, MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE, KERALA, PIN - 673001 2 THE PRINCIPLE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INV) KOCHI, ARYA BHANGY PINNACLE, SA ROAD, ELAMKULAM, KOCHI, PIN - 682020 SUSIE B. VARGHESE-SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC No.6756 of 2024 2 JUDGMENT Dated this the 21st day of February, 2024 This is the 2nd writ petition by the petitioner before this Court. 2. The 1st writ petition, W .P(C.) No.7829/2023 was filed before this Court with following prayers: “i) To call for the records leading to the issuance of Ext.P1, Ext.P2, Ext.P3 and Ext.P4 notices and to issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ or direction to the 1st Respondent to defer the assessment proceedings initiated pursuant to Ext.P1 and Ext.P3 notices until such time all the documents seized from the petitioners business premises are returned to petitioner and for a further period of 4 months from the date of such return. ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ or direction to the 2nd Respondent to complete the investigations against the petitioner and his related entities and release all the seized records in a time bound manner.” 3. This Court considering the grievance of the petitioner disposed of the said writ petition with following directions: “Considering the said stand and the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue, the present writ petition is disposed of with direction to the petitioner to move WPC No.6756 of 2024 3 an application before the Department for supply of copies of relevant documents within a period of ten days from today. If such an application is moved, the Department should supply copies of the relevant documents and pen-drives to the petitioner within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of such application, to enable the petitioner to file proper reply to Ext.P4 notice for undertaking further proceedings. After the petitioner is given copies of the relevant documents on charge basis as above, the petitioner should file his reply to Ext.P4 notice within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copies of the relevant documents from the Department. Further proceedings in respect of Ext.P4 notice should commence after four weeks from the date of supply of copies of relevant documents to the petitioner. If the petitioner fails to file an application for supply of copies of relevant documents as above, or if the documents are provided as above and the petitioner fails to file his reply to Ext.P4 notice within four weeks from the date of receipt of copies of relevant documents, the Department should proceed with the notice in Ext.P4, in accordance with law. It is made clear that if the petitioner files his reply within a period of four weeks of receipt of copies of relevant documents, final assessment order passed by the Department in the proceedings shall not be challenged by the petitioner on the ground of limitation. To enable the parties to undertake the aforesaid exercises, further proceedings in pursuance to Ext.P4 notice shall be kept in abeyance. Interlocutory application, if any, in the present writ petition stands dismissed.” WPC No.6756 of 2024 4 4. The petitioner is an assessee under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IT Act 1961’) is engaged in the business of manufacturing wholesale and retail of gold jewellery in the brand name ‘Dubai Gold’. The petitioner has created several entities and entities including proprietor firms, partnership firms, limited liability partnership, private limited companies etc., more than 12 in numbers. 5. A search and seizure operation was conducted at the business and residential premises of the petitioner. Several incriminating documents, materials and hard disc of computers etc., were seized from the business and residential premises of the petitioner and proceedings have been undertaken to complete the assessment under Section 153C of the I.T Act, 1961 for the assessment years 2015-2016 to 2020-2021. The petitioner approached this Court that despite the application having been made by the petitioner, the relevant documents were not supplied to him and in absence of the documents, the petitioner WPC No.6756 of 2024 5 was unable to give proper reply to the notices issued to him. Having considered the grievance and the stand of the revenue, this Court disposed of the said writ petition with directions as mentioned above. 6. Now the petitioner has approached this Court in the present writ petition with the following prayer: “To issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ or direction to the Respondent to defer the assessment U/s 153 C for the AY2011-2023 in the case of the petitioner under Ext.P1, P3 and P12 notices till the assessments in the case of the petitioner and the Dubai Gold Group of Companies u/s 147 are completed for the AY 2011-2023.” 7. The grievance/issue which is raised in the present writ petition was very much available to the petitioner. The petitioner did not make any prayer in the earlier writ petition in respect of the grievance/issue raised here, if any, as he stated in the present writ petition. A litigant cannot be allowed to come and file separate proceedings for each and every grievance/issue as and when he feels that same issue is there which was not raised in the earlier concluded proceedings between the same parties. This writ WPC No.6756 of 2024 6 petition is barred by the principle of res-judicata/constructive res-judicata. The sum and substance of the writ petition is the proceedings in pursuance to the search and seizure operation conducted on the business and residential premises of the petitioner and the very same issue was before this Court in earlier writ petition. Considering the aforesaid facts, I find this writ petition is nothing but a gross abuse of process of the court. The petitioner is adopting every trick to stall the early completion of the assessment proceedings. This Court cannot be a party to such a trick of a litigant. Thus, the present writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- DINESH KUMAR SINGH JUDGE AP WPC No.6756 of 2024 7 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6756/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 02.06.2022 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 153 C FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR STARTING FROM 2015-16 TO 2020-21 Exhibit P2 A COPY OF THE PRE-ASSESSMENT NOTICE DATED 29.08.2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P3 A COPY OF THE NOTICES DATED 29.08.2022 ISSUED UNDER SEC153 C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT FOR THE AYS 2011-12 A.Y 2012-13 AND A.Y 2013-14 Exhibit P4 A COY OF THE NOTICE DATED 17.02.2023 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 142 (1) Exhibit P5 COPY OF THE PANCHANAMA DATED 23.02.2023 FROM THE DOCUMENTS SEIZED FROM THE PETITIONER'S CORPORATE OFFICE AT, M/S DUBAI GOLD & DIAMONDS Exhibit P6 COPY OF THE PANCHANAMA DATED 24.02.2023 FOR THE DOCUMENTS SEIZED FROM THE PETITIONER'S FIRM AT 'FIRDOUS COMPLEX KUNNUMPURAM Exhibit P7 COPY OF THE PANCHANAMA DATED 22.02.2023 FOR THE DOCUMENTS SEIZED FROM FIRDOUS GOLD PERINTHALMANNA LLP Exhibit P8 COPY OF THE PANCHANAMA DATED 23.02.2023 FOR THE DOCUMENTS SEIZED FROM FIRDOUS GOLD CHEMMAD PRIVATE LIMITED Exhibit P9 COPY OF THE PANCHANAMA DATED 24.02.2023 FOR THE DOCUMENTS SEIZED FROM FIRDOUS GOLD RAMANATTUKARA LLP Exhibit P10 COPY OF THE PANCHANAMA DATED 24.02.2023 FOR THE DOCUMENTS SEIZED FROM PPM KONDOTTI Exhibit P11 A COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C).NO.7829/2023 Exhibit P12 COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 11.01.2024 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P13 A COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 25.01.2024 Exhibit P14 A COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 27.01.2024 Exhibit P15 A COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16.08.2023 Exhibit P16 A COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 02.06.2023 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER Exhibit P17 COPY OF THE SUMMONS DATED 16.08.2023 Exhibit P18 A COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 01.02.2024 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT "