M/S Satya Vidya Real Estate Private Limited, A Company Dulyregistered Under The Provisions Of The Companies Act, 1956, Havingits v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle, Bilaspur,Income Tax Department

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR NAFR WPT No. 86 of 2022 M/s Satya Vidya Real Estate Private Limited, A Company dulyregistered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, Havingits registered office at, Hatari Bazar Road, Sakti- 495689,Chhattisgarh, Through its Director Arun Kumar Agrawal. ---- Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Bilaspur,Income Tax Department, Having its office at, Aayakar Bhawan,Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur 495001, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For Petitioner For Respondent : Mr. Ankit Singhal, Advocate : Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Amit Choudhary, Advocate 30.03.2022 Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 1.This Petitioner aggrieved by issuance of notice under Section 153Cof the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act of 1961’) by the respondentauthority has filed this petition seeking following relief :- 10.1That, this Hon’ble Court may kindlybe pleased to pass any appropriate writ,order or direction to direct the RespondentAuthority to produce the complete recordsof the case for its kind perusal. 10.2That, this Hon’ble Court may kindlybe pleased to pass any appropriated writ,order or direction to quash and set asidethe impugned notice dated 15.07.2021issued by Respondent under Section 153Cof the IT Act and declare the same as illegaland void; 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly bepleased to pass any appropriated writ,order or direction to quash and set asidethe impugned order dated 10.03.2022passed by Respondent. 10.4 Any other relief or relief(s) which thisHon’ble Court may deem fit and proper inview of the facts and circumstances of thecase, may also kindly be granted.”Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper inview of the facts and circumstances of thecase, may also kindly be granted.” 2.Mr. Ankit Singhal, learned counsel for petitioner would submit that immediately after service of notice under Section 153C of Act of 1961, he submitted an application before the Assessing Officer to provide satisfaction recorded by Assessing Officer who searched thethird person and forwarded him the material for issuance of noticeunder Section 153C of Act of 1961. He contended that under theprovisions of Section 153C of Act of 1961, it is mandatory uponAssessing Officer searching the third person to record satisfactionthat any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thingseized or requisitioned, belongs to any books of account ordocuments, seized or requisitioned, pertains to any informationcontained therein, relates to a person other than the person, who was 3. searched. Petitioner is the person other than person searched andtherefore, Assessing Officer is required to supply satisfactionrecorded by other Assessing Officer who searched third person,which was not provided to him even after demand made by him priorto submitting an application, as such, there is procedural irregularityin issuance of notice. During pendency of this writ petition before thisCourt now, respondent Authority has passed assessment order on22.03.2022. As there is procedural irregularity in non-supplying ofsatisfaction recorded by Assessing Officer who searched otherperson, this Court can entertain this writ petition even thoughpetitioner is having an alternative remedy of filing an appeal beforeAppellate Authority. He places reliance upon the judgment passed byHon’ble Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax-IIIv. Calcutta Knitwears, Ludhiana reported in (2014) 6 SCC 444 andSuper Malls Private Limited v. Principal Commissioner ofIncome Tax, 8, New Delhi reported in (2020) 4 SCC 581. Per contra, Mr. Ajay Kumrani, learned counsel for the respondentwould submit that as assessment order under the Act of 1961 hasalready been passed, petitioner is required to challenge the order byway of filing an appeal under Section 246A of the Act of 1961.Petitioner raised factual dispute of not recording of satisfaction byAssessing Officer who searched third person, which can very well beconsidered and decided by Appellate Authority based on the relevantrecords. He contended that in case of Income Tax Officer-1 and others v. Smt. Kamala Ojha decided on 25.06.2019 in Writ AppealNo.293 of 2017, theCourt while considering order passed in writpetition challenging notice under Section 148 of the Act of 1961 hasheld that if during pendency of the writ petition challenging noticeunder Section 148, assessment order is passed, then Assessee isrequired to file an appeal under Section 246A of the Act of 1961. Healso submits that order passed by Division Bench in case of KamalaOjha (supra) was challenged by Assessee before Hon’ble SupremeCourt. Referring Annexure R/1, it is submitted that Special LeavePetition filed by Assessee was dismissed granting liberty to Assesseeto file an appeal challenging order of assessment. 4.I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5.The grievance of petitioner is that jurisdictional Assessing Officerissued notice under Section 153C of the Act of 1961 based on theinformation received by him from other Assessing Officer, whosearched other person. After receipt of notice, when petitionersubmitted an application for supply of satisfaction recorded by theother Assessing Officer who searched third person, jurisdictionalAssessing Officer has forwarded reason / satisfaction recorded byhim before issuing notice under Section 153C of the Act of 1961, butgrievance of petitioner is that jurisdictional Assessing Officer has notsupplied him satisfaction recorded by Assessing Officer, whosearched third person. 5 6.When this Court put pin-pointed question to learned counsel for thepetitioner that under which provision, satisfaction recorded byAssessing Officer who searched third person is to be supplied toAssessee, he submits that under the scheme of Act, Assessee isrequired to know the basis and reasons, on which, notice has beenissued. Undisputedly, when Assessee has submitted an applicationbefore Assessing Officer, he supplied reasons recorded by himbefore issaunce of notice under Section 153C of Act of 1961. petitioner that under which provision, satisfaction recorded byAssessing Officer who searched third person is to be supplied toAssessee, he submits that under the scheme of Act, Assessee isrequired to know the basis and reasons, on which, notice has beenissued. Undisputedly, when Assessee has submitted an applicationbefore Assessing Officer, he supplied reasons recorded by himbefore issaunce of notice under Section 153C of Act of 1961. 7.At this stage, Mr. Singhal would submit that as per his information,Assessing Officer who searched third person has not recorded thesatisfaction.Assessing Officer who searched third person has not recorded thesatisfaction. 8.In view of above, in the opinion of this Court, this appears to be afactual dispute raised by learned counsel for petitioner, which can bevery well considered and decided by Appellate Authority. factual dispute raised by learned counsel for petitioner, which can bevery well considered and decided by Appellate Authority. 7.At this stage, Mr. Singhal would submit that as per his information,Assessing Officer who searched third person has not recorded thesatisfaction.Assessing Officer who searched third person has not recorded thesatisfaction. 8.In view of above, in the opinion of this Court, this appears to be afactual dispute raised by learned counsel for petitioner, which can bevery well considered and decided by Appellate Authority. factual dispute raised by learned counsel for petitioner, which can bevery well considered and decided by Appellate Authority. 9.The case laws, on which, counsel for petitioner placed reliance arearising of order passed by Appellate Authority in an appealchallenging order of assessment, hence, in view of facts andcircumstances of the case, I am not inclined to entertain this writpetition, particularly when during pendency of this petition,assessment order is already passed by Authority as the petitioner ishaving efficacious alternate statutory remedy of filing appeal underSection 246A of the Act. The petitioner will be at liberty to approachthe Appellate Authority as per provided under the Act of 1961, raisingall the grounds available to him. Appellate Authority, in turn, willarising of order passed by Appellate Authority in an appealchallenging order of assessment, hence, in view of facts andcircumstances of the case, I am not inclined to entertain this writpetition, particularly when during pendency of this petition,assessment order is already passed by Authority as the petitioner ishaving efficacious alternate statutory remedy of filing appeal underSection 246A of the Act. The petitioner will be at liberty to approachthe Appellate Authority as per provided under the Act of 1961, raisingall the grounds available to him. Appellate Authority, in turn, will consider and decide all the grounds raised by appellant in an appealto be filed challenging order of assessment strictly in accordance withlaw. 10.The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Yogesh