RAJENDRA KUMAR SHARMA V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -2(1) (1) AND ANOTHER

WTAX/392/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Rajendra Kumar Sharma, the petitioner, challenging a notice issued under Section 153-C of the Income Tax Act, 1948, for the assessment year 2015-16. The notice was based on documents received by the Assessing Officer from a search conducted on the Saloni Group, unrelated to the petitioner. The petitioner argued that the documents could not form the basis for the proceedings as they were not directly linked to him and cited a Karnataka High Court decision supporting his claim. The revenue contended that the documents indicated concealed income and were thus relevant for the proceedings. The court found that the petitioner had alternative remedies and had delayed in filing the petition, leading to the decision not to interfere at this stage.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 747467 (HC-ALLAHABAD)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 31-03-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Sunil Kumar Sharma Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (2023) 146 taxman.com 553 (Karnataka)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1948
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: GAURAV MAHAJAN; MANU GHILDYAL
• Assessee Lawyers: AMIT MAHAJAN
• Keywords: Assessment proceedings; Concealed income; Extraordinary jurisdiction; Income Tax; Writ Tax
• Section: 132; 153 C

Judgement Text

"Chief Justice's Court Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 392 of 2023 Petitioner :- Rajendra Kumar Sharma Respondent :- The Income Tax Officer Ward -2(1) (1) And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Mahajan Counsel for Respondent :- Gaurav Mahajan Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker,Chief Justice Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J. 1. Heard Sri Amit Mahajan, learned counsel for the assessee and Sri Manu Ghildyal, learned counsel for the revenue. 2. Challenge has been raised to the notice dated 04.02.2022 issued by the Assessing Authority of the petitioner under Section 153-C of the Income Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for A.Y. 2015-16. 3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is, in the present case, the petitioner was not subjected to any search proceeding under Section 132 of the Act. That search was conducted in the case of Saloni Group of which the petitioner is not a part. However, as a result of those search proceedings, certain loose papers etc. were marked to and have been received by the Assessing Officer of the petitioner on 27.10.2021. 4. Referring to Section 153-C(3) of the Act it has been submitted, the relevant date would be the date of receipt of the documents by the Assessing Officer of the petitioner i.e. 27.10.2021. Further, relying on a decision of a learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court in Sunil Kumar Sharma Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (2023) 146 taxman.com 553 (Karnataka), it has been submitted, such loose papers cannot form the basis for initiation of proceeding under Section 153-C of the Act. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue would contend, the provision of Section 153-C(3) of the Act would not apply to the case of the petitioner inasmuch as that provision applies to the person searched which in the present case is the Saloni Group. Alternatively, that plea is also open to the petitioner to raise before the Assessing Authority. 6. Then, it has been stated, the loose documents would constitute material indicating concealed income. Therefore, the same would always be considered during the course of the proceedings under Section 153-C(3) of the Act. 7. Last, objection has been raised both as to the availability of alternative remedies of objection and appeal (if required), and on account of laches. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the record, inasmuch as the impugned show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 04.02.2022, one year has already passed whereafter the present petition came to be filed. 9. In absence of any plausable explanation as to delay and also in face of statutory remedy of objection available to the petitioner, which objection has also been filed, we do not consider it a fit case to offer any interference in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. Without adjudicating the merits of the objection raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and leaving it open to the petitioner to press those objections first before the Assessing Authority, whereafter the matter may be entertained on merits, present writ petition is disposed of with a direction upon respondent no.1 to deal with the assessment proceedings strictly in accordance with law, keeping in mind the observations made above. Order Date :- 31.3.2023 Abhilash . (S. D. Singh, J) (Pritinker Diwaker, CJ) Digitally signed by :- ABHILASH SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad "