B.kubendran v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Cir 2 (1) Chennai, Investigation Wing, Room

DATED: 09.04.2021 CORAM THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH W.P. Nos.3023, 3031, 3032, 3033, 3036 & 3037 of 2020and WMP.Nos.3540, 3547, 3545, 3550, 3546 & 3549 of 2020 B.Kubendran.... Petitioner in all WPsVs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,Central CIR 2 (1) Chennai,Investigation Wing,Room No.122, No.46, Old No.108, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam,Chennai – 600 034..... Respondent in all WPs Prayer in WP.3023/2020 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226of the Constitution of India praying to Writ of Certiorari tochallenge the impugned Assessment order passed by the Respondentin DIN:ITBA/AST/M/153C/2019-20/1023498867(1) under Section 143(3) read with Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for theAssessment Year 2012-13 dated 30.12.2019 and to quash the sameas illegal, unreasonable, arbitrary and contrary to law. Prayer in WP.3031/2020 : To challenge the impugned Assessmentorder passed by the Respondent in DIN.ITBA/AST/M/153C/2019-20/1023498937(1) under Section 143(3) read with Section 153C ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2013-14 dated30.12.2019 and to quash the same as illegal, unreasonable,arbitrary and contrary to law. Prayer in WP.3032/2020 : To challenge the impugned Assessmentorder passed by the Respondent in DIN.ITBA/AST/M/153C/2019-20/1023498992(1) under Section 143(3) read with Section 153C ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2014-15 dated30.12.2019 and to quash the same as illegal, unreasonable,arbitrary and contrary to law. Prayer in WP.3033/2020 : To challenge the impugned Assessmentorder passed by the Respondent in DIN.ITBA/AST/M/153C/2019- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 20/1023499054(1) under Section 143(3) read with Section 153C ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2015-16 dated30.12.2019 and to quash the same as illegal, unreasonable,arbitrary and contrary to law. Prayer in WP.3036/2020 : To challenge the impugned Assessmentorder passed by the Respondent in DIN.ITBA/AST/M/153C/2019-20/1023499141(1) under Section 143(3) read with Section 153C ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2016-17 dated30.12.2019 and to quash the same as illegal, unreasonable,arbitrary and contrary to law. Prayer in WP.3031/2020 : To challenge the impugned Assessmentorder passed by the Respondent in DIN.ITBA/AST/M/153C/2019-20/1023499259(1) under Section 143(3) read with Section 153C ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2017-18 dated30.12.2019 and to quash the same as illegal, unreasonable,arbitrary and contrary to law. Heard Mr.Nithyesh Natraj, learned Counsel for thepetitioner and Mr.A.P.Srinivas, learned Senior Standing Counselfor the respondents. 2. In this batch of writ petitions, the petitioner, anassessee on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,Central Circle 2 (1)/ respondent challenges six orders ofassessment passed in terms of the provisions of the Income TaxAct, 1961 (in short ‘Act’). The years in question are 2012-13,2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18. For thepurposes of argument and since the facts involved are slightlydifferent, the learned counsel for the petitioner splits theimpugned orders into two batches, 2012-13, 2014-15 and 2017-18being batch I and 2015-16, 2016-17 being batch II. 3. The admitted facts in common to both sets of writpetitions are that a search was conducted in the premises ofC.Vijayabaskar on 07.04.2017. All files relating to the searchedentity as well as those associated to him were centralized on24.09.2019. Notices under Section 153C were issued on25.10.2019. Incidentally the petitioner points out that the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ impugned orders of assessment refer to a notice under Section143(2) that is stated to have been issued on nil.12.2019. 3. The admitted facts in common to both sets of writpetitions are that a search was conducted in the premises ofC.Vijayabaskar on 07.04.2017. All files relating to the searchedentity as well as those associated to him were centralized on24.09.2019. Notices under Section 153C were issued on25.10.2019. Incidentally the petitioner points out that the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ impugned orders of assessment refer to a notice under Section143(2) that is stated to have been issued on nil.12.2019. 4. However, no notices have, admittedly been issued underSection 143(2) for any of the years in question. If thereference is to notice dated 07.12.2019, this is a questionnaireunder Section 142(1) of the Act and not a notice under Section143(2) of the Act. However, nothing turns on this error which isimmaterial to decide the legal issue raised. The petitionerfiled responses to the questionnaires and after taking note ofthe same, assessments have come to be completed on 30.12.2019 interms of Section 143(3) read with Section 153C of the Act. 5. As regards the first set of writ petitions, the issuesthat are sought to be argued are (i) whether a notice underSection 143(2) of the Act is to be mandatorily issued prior tocompletion of an assessment in consequence of a notice underSection 153C and (ii) whether the provisions of natural justicehave been satisfied in these cases. As regards the second setof writ petitions, in addition to the issues crystallized forbatch one, an additional issue raised is as to whether theAssessing Authority was right in relying on a valuation reportsought for and obtained by the investigating officer postproceedings for search. 6. I will advert to the above issues in seriatum. 7. On the question of issue of notice under Section 143(2)of the Act, the petitioner relies on the judgment of the SupremeCourt in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax andanother vs. Hotel Bluemoon (321 ITR 362). Assessments in thatcase had been framed under Section 158BD of the Act and hadtravelled in appeal to the High Court under Section 260A. One ofthe two substantial questions raised was whether on the factsand in circumstances of the case the issuance of notice underSection 143 (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 within theprescribed time-limit for the purpose of making the assessmentunder Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was mandatory? 8. The scheme of assessment under erstwhile Chapter XIVB ofthe Act, provided for the framing of assessments for tenprevious years prior to the date of search under Section 132 ofthe Act. Section 158BC provided for assessments to be framedupon the searched person/entity and Section 158BD onpersons/entities in relation to whom materials had been found inthe course of the search. 9. The determination of undisclosed income of the blockperiod in the manner was laid down in Section 158BB and Section158 BC that stated specifically that the provisions of Section 142, Sections 143(2) and (3), Section 144 and Section 145 shall,so far as may be, apply. Circular 717 dated 14.08.1995 issuedby the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) reiterated this inparagraph 39.3 (3) under the heading, procedure for making ablock assessment. Considering this position, the Bench held thata notice under Section 143(2) was mandatory, in the absence ofwhich, the assessment made would stand vitiated. 10. Revenue attempted to argue in that case that theexpression so far as may be, applies indicated that reference toSection 143(2) therein was not mandatory, but optional. This wasnegated by the Court stating that where an Assessing Officerintended to make an assessment for repudiation of the returnfiled by an assessee under Section 158BC, he has necessarily toapply the provisions of Sections 142, 143(2) and (3). Thepetitioner before me, relies upon this decision greatly. 10. Revenue attempted to argue in that case that theexpression so far as may be, applies indicated that reference toSection 143(2) therein was not mandatory, but optional. This wasnegated by the Court stating that where an Assessing Officerintended to make an assessment for repudiation of the returnfiled by an assessee under Section 158BC, he has necessarily toapply the provisions of Sections 142, 143(2) and (3). Thepetitioner before me, relies upon this decision greatly. 12. Revenue argues that the language of Section 158BC isdifferent from that of Section 158C and where the formerspecifically refers to a notice under Section 143(2), the lattermerely states that a notice may be issued to the assessee andthat the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be, applyaccordingly, as if such return were a return required to befurnished under Section 139. Thus, in the absence of specificreference to Section 143(2), the only stipulation being that theassessment be completed in line with the provisions of the Act,it would suffice that the assessment be completed in accordancewith law and the principles of natural justice. This is, hesays, the view that has been taken by the High Courts in thedecisions relied upon by the revenue. 13. The provisions of Section 158BC (b) setting out theprocedure for block assessment are extracted below:'Procedure for block assessment.158BC. Where any search has been conductedunder section 132 of books of account, otherdocuments or assets are requisitioned underSection 132A, in the case of any person, then, -- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (a) ..... (b) the Assessing Officer shall proceed todetermine the undisclosed income of the blockperiod in the manner laid down in section 158BBand the provisions of section 142, sub-sections(2) and (3) of section 143 [section 144 andsection 145] shall, so far as may be, apply;'14. The provisions of Section 153A(1) (a) deal withassessment in cases of search or requisition and are extractedbelow: '[Assessment in case of search or requisition. 153A. [(1) Notwithstanding anythingcontained in section 139, section 147, section148, section 149, section 151 and section 153,in the case of a person where a search isinitiated under section 132 or books ofaccount, other documents or any assets arerequisitioned under section 132A after the31[st] day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officershall--(a) issue notice to such person requiringhim to furnish within such period, as may bespecified in the notice, the return of incomein respect of each assessment year fallingwithin six assessment years [and or therelevant assessment year or years] referred toin clause (b), in the prescribed form andverified in the prescribed manner and settingforth such other particulars as may beprescribed and the provisions of this Actshall, so far as may be, apply accordingly asif such return were a return required to befurnished under Section 139, (b) assess or reassess the total incomeof six assessment years immediately precedingthe assessment year relevant to the previousyears in which such search is conducted orrequisition is made [and for the relevantassessment year or years]:' 15.In the case of Rangroopchand Chordia, a Division Benchof this Court dealt with a statutory appeal filed by the revenueunder Section 260A of the Act. The appeal had been admitted ontwo substantial questions relating to whether an addition ofundisclosed income may be made on the basis of loose sheetsfound in the search, particularly when the assessee therein hadaccepted, in his sworn statement, that the information containedin the sheets reflected his undisclosed income. In that case theassessee had not filed a return within the time stipulated in 15.In the case of Rangroopchand Chordia, a Division Benchof this Court dealt with a statutory appeal filed by the revenueunder Section 260A of the Act. The appeal had been admitted ontwo substantial questions relating to whether an addition ofundisclosed income may be made on the basis of loose sheetsfound in the search, particularly when the assessee therein hadaccepted, in his sworn statement, that the information containedin the sheets reflected his undisclosed income. In that case theassessee had not filed a return within the time stipulated in the notice issued under Section 158BC. The return had been filedone year and seven months after the date of the notice and therewas only three days left for the department to complete theassessment. 16. The Bench thus stated that a notice under Section 143(2) could not be issued, since the issuance of such noticecontemplated adherence to the principles of natural justice.Since the assessee had created a situation to his advantage bydefaulting on the requirement to comply with the notice underSection 158BC, he should not be permitted to take advantage ofsuch default. It was in that context that the Bench held thatthe decision in the case of Blue Moon should be seen to come tothe aid of a person, who had filed his return within the timestipulated in the statutory notice, and not one who haddefaulted. 17. Both decisions, that of the Supreme Court in Blue Moonas well as this Court in Rangroopchand Chordia, are in thecontext of erstwhile Chapter-XIV B and neither decision comes tothe aid of the petitioner in this case, since it would notanswer the argument in relation to whether the issuance ofnotice under Section 143(2) was mandatory in the context of anassessment under Section 153A/C as well. 18. The Delhi High Court in Ashok Chaddha (supra) had frameda substantial question specifically on whether the issue of anotice under Section 143(2) was mandatory for finalisation ofassessment under Section 153A. This case is thus on point asfar as the present writ petition is concerned. The assesseetherein relied on a slew of decisions of the Supreme Court andvarious High Courts for the proposition that notice underSection 143(2) was mandatory. However, the Bench, after anelaborate discussion negates the plea of the assessee,concluding that the issuance of notice was not mandatory in thecase of an assessment under Section 153A. 19. The discussion, running between paragraphs 7 and 13 areextracted below: ‘7. On the other hand, learned counsel for theRevenue argues that the assessment being under s.153A,there is no requirement of issue of notice under s, 143(2)of the Act. He submits that in any case, there is noprescribed proforma for issuing the notice. The noticeis usually issued in the proforma marked as "ITNS-33".It is a communication by the AO to the assessee givinghim the opportunity as required under s. 143(2). Therefore, once the assessee has been put tonotice and given opportunity to attend the office, therequirement of s. 143(2) is complete whether notice isRevenue argues that the assessment being under s.153A,there is no requirement of issue of notice under s, 143(2)of the Act. He submits that in any case, there is noprescribed proforma for issuing the notice. The noticeis usually issued in the proforma marked as "ITNS-33".It is a communication by the AO to the assessee givinghim the opportunity as required under s. 143(2). Therefore, once the assessee has been put tonotice and given opportunity to attend the office, therequirement of s. 143(2) is complete whether notice is issued in proforma "ITNS-33" or in any other format. Inthe present case, the AO had communicated his intentionto scrutinize the return by way of two letters andafforded opportunity to the assessee to producenecessary accounts, documents or evidence. Therefore,the requirement, if any, of s. 143(2) has beensatisfied. issued in proforma "ITNS-33" or in any other format. Inthe present case, the AO had communicated his intentionto scrutinize the return by way of two letters andafforded opportunity to the assessee to producenecessary accounts, documents or evidence. Therefore,the requirement, if any, of s. 143(2) has beensatisfied. 8. Admittedly, the assessee was issued a noticeunder s. 153A of the Act, in response to which he hadfiled a return of income. Thereafter, two detailedquestionnaires were issued to the assessee before thecompletion of assessment s. 153A of the Act providesprocedure for assessment in case where a search isinitiated or documents are requisitioned. The relevantportion of s. 153A is reproduced here under: "Sec. 153A -Assessment in case of search orrequisition [1] Notwithstanding anything containedin s. 139, s. 147, s. 148, s. 149, s. 151 and s.153, in the case of a person where a search isinitiated under s. 132 or books of account, otherdocuments or any assets are requisitioned under s.132A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the AO shall- (a) issue notice to such person requiring him tofurnish within such period, as may be specified inthe notice, the return of income in respect ofeach assessment year falling within six assessmentyears referred to in cl. (b), in the prescribed 3form and verified in the prescribed manner andsetting forth such other particulars as may beprescribed 3 and the provisions of this Act shall,so far as may be, apply accordingly as if suchreturn were a return required to be furnishedunder s. 139 ;” 9. There is no specific provision in the Actrequiring the assessment made under s. 153A to be afterissue of notice under s. 143(2) of the Act. Learnedcounsel for the assessee places heavy reliance on thejudgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hotel BlueMoon (supra) wherein it was held that the where anassessment has to be completed under s. 143(3) r/w s.158BC, notice under s. 143(2) must be issued andomission to do so cannot be a procedural irregularityand the same is not curable. It is to be noted that theabove said judgment was in the context of s. 158BC.Clause (b) of s. 158BC expressly provides that "the AOshall proceed to determine the undisclosed income of the block period in the manner laid down in s.158BB and the provisions of s. 142, sub-ss (2) and (3)of s. 143, s. 144 and s. 145 shall, so far as may be,apply. This is not the position under s. 153A. The lawlaid down in Hotel Blue Moon, is thus not applicable tothe facts of the present case. 10. The decision of Lunar Diamond Ltd. (supra),Vardhman Estates (supra) and Bhan Testiles (supra)relied upon by learned counsel for the assessee relatedto the requirement of service of notice upon theassessee within a prescribed time and thus notapplicable to the present case. The case of Pawan Gupta(supra) related to mandatory issue of notice under s.143(2) of the Act in the case of regular assessment asalso on block assessment. This being not a case ofassessment based on search under s. 153(A), the same isnot applicable to the present case. In the case of RajKumar Chawla (supra) relied upon by learned counsel forthe assessee was that of the Tribunal, wherein, a viewwas taken that if a return filed under s. 148 of theAct is sought to be scrutinized, the compliance ofprovision contained in proviso under s. 143(2) of theAct is mandatory. The issue of requirement of noticeunder s. 143(2) for an assessment under s. 147 came upfor consideration before this Court recently in CIT v.Madhya Bharat Energy Corpn. IT Appeal No.950 of 2008decided on 11[th] July, 2011. In that case also, thisCourt has held that in the absence of any specificprovision under s. 147 of the Act, the issuance ofnotice under s. 143(2) cannot be held to be a mandatoryrequirement. 11. It is also to be noted that s. 153A providesfor the procedure for assessment in case of search orrequisition. Sub-s. (1) starts with non-obstante clausestating that it was “notwithstanding" anythingcontained in ss. 147, 148 and 149, etc. Clause(a) thereof provides for issuance of notice to theperson searched under s. 132 or where documents etc arerequisitioned under s. 132(A), to furnish a return ofincome. This clause nowhere prescribes for issuance ofnotice under s. 143(2). Learned counsel for theassessee/appellant sought to contend that the words,"so far as may be applicable" made it mandatory forissuance of notice under s. 143(2) since the returnfiled in response to notice under s. 153A was to betreated as one under s. 139. Learned counsel reliesupon R.Dalmia v. CIT (supra) wherein the question ofissue of notice under s. 143(2) was examined with reference to s. 148 by the Supreme Court in the contextof s. 147. The Apex Court held as under (page 488): "As to the argument based upon ss. 144A, 246and 263, we do not doubt that assessments under s.143 and assessments and reassessments under s.147 are different, but in making assessment andre-assessments under s. 147 the procedure laiddown in sections subsequent to s. 139, includingthat laid down by s. 144B, has to be followed." 12. The case of R. Dalmia v CIT (supra) primarilywas with regard to applicability of s. 144B and s.153 (since omitted w.e.f. 1[st]April,1989) to theassessment made under ss. 147 and 148 and thus cannotbe said to be the decision laying down the lawregarding mandatory issue of notice under s. 143(2). 13. The words ‘so far as may be’ in cl. (a) of subs. (1) of s. 153A could not be interpreted that theissue of notice under s. 143(2) was mandatory in caseof assessment under s. 153A. The use of the words, ‘sofar as may be’ cannot be stretched to the extent ofmandatory issue of notice under s. 143(2). As is noted,a specific notice was required to be issued under cl.(a) of sub-s. (1) of s. 153A calling upon the personssearched or requisitioned to file return. That beingso, no further notice under s. 143(2) could becontemplated for assessment under s. 153A.’ 20. The Punjab & Haryana High Court applies the same ratioin an identical challenge before it in the case of TarsemSingla. 21. The Kerala High Court in Promy Kuriakose (supra) wasalso dealing with a statutory appeal wherein one of thesubstantial questions related specifically to the issue ofwhether a notice under Section 143(2) was mandatory and has tobe issued in line with the procedure stipulated under Section139 of the Act. The Bench relied on the decision of the DelhiHigh Court in Ashok Chaddha’s case and the Punjab & Haryana HighCourt in Tarsem Singla (supra), reiterating their conclusionthat there was no requirement for a notice to be issued underSection 143(2) for completion of an assessment under Section153C and thus the question of adhering to the time limitprescribed under the proviso to Section 143(2) did not arise. 22. The difference in the language of Section 158 BC andSection 153A must be attributed sufficient weightage. Whilethere is specific reference to the provisions of Section 143(2)in Section 158 BC, such reference is conspicuous by its absence https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ in Section 153A. Section 153A only states that an assessment interms thereof shall be completed in terms of the provisions ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 as if such return were a return re-quired to be furnished under Section 139. 23. It would thus suffice that in framing an assessment un-der Section 153A, due regard must be given to the principles ofnatural justice, which requirement will stand satisfied eitherby issuance of notice under Section 143(2) or a questionnaireunder Section 142(1). In this case, a questionnaire has beenissued. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ in Section 153A. Section 153A only states that an assessment interms thereof shall be completed in terms of the provisions ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 as if such return were a return re-quired to be furnished under Section 139. 23. It would thus suffice that in framing an assessment un-der Section 153A, due regard must be given to the principles ofnatural justice, which requirement will stand satisfied eitherby issuance of notice under Section 143(2) or a questionnaireunder Section 142(1). In this case, a questionnaire has beenissued. 24. I am, thus in agreement with the ratio of the decisionscited above and answer this legal issue in favour of the revenue. 25. On the question of adherence to the principles ofnatural justice, the relevant sequence of dates and events isthat a notice under Section 153C was issued on 25.10.2019 inregard to a search conducted in 2017. Unfortunately neither theaffidavit filed in support of the writ petitions nor theimpugned orders of assessment anywhere mention the date ofsearch and it was only in the course of the submissions madeorally that the date of search was noted by me as 07.11.2017.The limitation for completion of assessments would be the 31[st] ofDecember, 2019. The impugned orders state that centralizationof the assessments took place only on 24.09.2019 and pursuant tothe centralization, notices under Section 153C were issued on25.10.2019, leaving barely a period of a little over two monthsfor completion of six search assessments. 26. The notice under Section 153C called upon thepetitioner to file returns within a period of 8 days fromservice of the notice and the returns have been filed on07.12.2019, in all cases, beyond the period granted by therespondent. On the same date a questionnaire under Section 142(1) has been issued calling for various particulars in responseto which the petitioner has filed replies dated 13.12.2019furnishing some of the particulars sought. The impugned ordershave come to be passed on 30.12.2019 without further referenceto the petitioner. 27. In respect of batch-1, dealing with Assessment Years(AY) 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2017-18, the impugnedassessments proceed on the basis that the petitioner haspurchased certain immovable properties, which were not admittedin the petitioner’s returns of income. The purchase cost hascome to be added as undisclosed investment. The questionnaireissued notice under Section 142(1) called for variousparticulars such as a brief note on the activities carried outduring the relevant year, a copy of computation of income, statement of gross profit, audited financials, details ofmovable and immovable assets, details of sundry debtors andcreditors, bank statements and documentary evidences forremittance of statutory liabilities. 28. In its response, the petitioner has stated that alldetails of movable and immovable properties have been disclosedin the return of income filed. It was thus incumbent upon therespondent, to have, in the aforesaid circumstances issued ashow cause notice putting the petitioner to notice of theproperties of which he appears to have collated informationfound reflected in the order of assessment, and the purchasecost of which, have been added as undisclosed income. Suchdetails however, find mention only in the impugned order and noopportunity has been furnished to the petitioner, prior topassing thereof, which in my view, constitutes a violation ofthe principles of natural justice. 28. In its response, the petitioner has stated that alldetails of movable and immovable properties have been disclosedin the return of income filed. It was thus incumbent upon therespondent, to have, in the aforesaid circumstances issued ashow cause notice putting the petitioner to notice of theproperties of which he appears to have collated informationfound reflected in the order of assessment, and the purchasecost of which, have been added as undisclosed income. Suchdetails however, find mention only in the impugned order and noopportunity has been furnished to the petitioner, prior topassing thereof, which in my view, constitutes a violation ofthe principles of natural justice. 29. As far as AY 2015-16 and AY 2016-17 are concerned, nodoubt pursuant to the notice under Section 153C, a show causenotice has been issued on 16.11.2019 proposing the addition ofundisclosed income from quarrying. The petitioner has replied tothe same on 25.11.2019 objecting to the proposal. On 07.12.2019,a questionnaire under Section 142(1) has been issued calling forthe same particulars as for the other assessment years underbatch-1. The procedure adopted appears to be skewed in so far asnormally it is the questionnaire that is issued first and a showcause notice thereafter, after receiving basic and primarydetails from the petitioner. 30. Be that as it may, a reply was filed by the petitionerto the questionnaire on 13.12.2019 as well a further response toshow cause notice on 19.12.2019 wherein he states: SUB: - Furnishing of particulars to your ShowCause Notice – Completion of Assessment – Reg. REF:- PAN – / DCIT / Cent. Circle 2(1)/Chennai/AY2015-16/YourNoticeNo.ITBA/AST/F/153C(SCN)/2019-20/1020563310(1)dated 16/11/2019. My reply letter dt.25.11.2019filed on 18.12.2019.********** In response to the above mentioned Show CauseNotice, the following further particulars arefurnished. 1) In the first place I object to yourjurisdiction u/s 153 C of the IT Act, 1961 there wasno seized material found at Shri. C. Vijayabaskar’ssearch to warrant assessment jurisdiction u/s 153 C ofthe Act on me from the issues raised by you in yourassessment proceedings notice it is observed that theassessment on me is being proceeded with on the basisof valuation report, which is an opinion having morethan two views and not on the seized materials. 2) The assessee submits that, Sir, Your goodoffice has gained jurisdiction over the assessee’sfile only on 24.09.2019 from assessee’s earlier AO,Pudukottai. The assessee assumes that you gainedjurisdiction after you were put in position of theseized materials, if any on 01.11.2019. Therefore thetime limit for completion of assessment is 31.12.2020and not 31.12.2019. Therefore the assessee request younot to be in haste and hurry for your notice u/s 153Cwas served on the assessee only on 01.11.2019 and tocomplete the assessment on 31.12.2019 will be legallyuntenable. The assessee will be thankful to you foryour response on the jurisdiction and on the timelimit for passing assessment order, so that theassessee will have the opportunity to exercise hislegal rights on this genuine issue.Thanking you. . . . 31. The impugned order has come to be passed on 30.12.2019without further reference to the petitioner. In this case aswell, I am of the view that the assessments have certainly beencompleted in haste. When the search has been completed on07.04.2017, there was no necessity to have waited till20.09.2019 for centralization, and issue notices under Section153C only on 25.10.2019. Any delay on the part of the petitionerin responding to the notices appears insignificant in the faceof the enormous delay by the Income Tax Department in takingstock of the search material, centralizing the cases and issuingthe notices in time, particularly, since it is their case thatthe assessment get time barred on 31.12.2020. 31. The impugned order has come to be passed on 30.12.2019without further reference to the petitioner. In this case aswell, I am of the view that the assessments have certainly beencompleted in haste. When the search has been completed on07.04.2017, there was no necessity to have waited till20.09.2019 for centralization, and issue notices under Section153C only on 25.10.2019. Any delay on the part of the petitionerin responding to the notices appears insignificant in the faceof the enormous delay by the Income Tax Department in takingstock of the search material, centralizing the cases and issuingthe notices in time, particularly, since it is their case thatthe assessment get time barred on 31.12.2020. 32. The petitioner has, for AY 2015-16 and AY 2016-17,specifically sought more time to make his submissions on themerits of the matter, relating to alleged undisclosed incomefrom quarrying operations and seigniorage fee. The respondent officer has, in making additions as aforesaid, simply ignoredthis request. 33. As regards the question of valuation by theinvestigating officer, Revenue relies on the provision ofSection 132(9D) that reads as follows:'132(9D) The authorised officer may,during the course of the search or seizure orwithin a period of sixty days from the date onwhich the last of the authorisations forsearch was executed, make a reference to aValuation Officer referred to in section 142A,who shall estimate the fair market value ofthe property in the manner provided under thatsection and submit a report of the estimate tothe said officer within a period of sixty daysfrom the date of receipt of such reference.' 34. The Investigating officer is thus, empowered to referan issue to valuation even during the process of search.However, such report has to be put to the assessee and his fulland complete response sought prior to using the same againsthim. This has not been done in the present case. Thus, while thereference to valuation is in order, the decision making processis flawed and in violation of the principles of natural justice. 35. There is no explanation set forth in counter or at thetime of hearing to explain why the assessment had been taken upfor completion, at the very fag end of limitation and for thisreason, I believe I would have been justified, had I annulledthe assessments, as a second innings is not to be granted to thedepartment, merely as a matter of rote. However, and solely as amatter of prudence, I set aside the assessments with a directionto the respondent to issue notices afresh, hear the petitionerand pass orders of assessments within a period of eight (8)weeks from today, with sufficient time being given to thepetitioner to putforth his submissions on merits. 36. These writ petitions are disposed as above. MPs areclosed with no order as to costs. Assistant Registrar(CS III) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar rkp/vs/sl To The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,Central CIR 2 (1) Chennai,Investigation Wing,Room No.122, No.46, Old No.108, Mahatma Gandhi Road,Nungambakkam,Chennai – 600 034. +1 cc to Mr.A.P.Srinivas, Senior Standing Counsel Sr No.22589W.P. Nos.3023, 3031, 3032, 3033, 3036 & 3037 of 2020andWMP.Nos.3540, 3547, 3545, 3550, 3546 & 3549 of 202009.04.2021SKY(CO)RG.26.04.2021(14P/3C)