Income Tax Case

W.P.No.11630 of 2023 and etc., batch IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Reserved on16.11.2023Pronounced on 18.01.2024 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN W.P.Nos.11630, 11633, 11635, 11636, 11638, 11644, 12018, 12021,12686,12688, 12691, 13114, 13117, 13119, 13125, 13129, 13142,13432, 13436,13438, 13442, 13443, 13489, 13494, 13500, 13504,13602, 13609, 13616,13619, 13625, 13771, 13775, 13781, 14379,14384, 14387, 14391, 14918,14927, 14929, 14930, 14934 & 16431 of 2023 and W.M.P.Nos.11535, 11536, 11544, 11545, 11546, 11551, 11552, 11554,11539, 11542, 11547, 11548, 11549, 11550, 11555, 11556, 11557, 11870,11871, 11872, 11874, 12468, 12470, 12479, 12481, 12485, 12486, 12897,12900, 13107, 13108, 13116, 13117, 13120, 13121, 13123, 13124, 13113,13115, 13169, 13170, 13172, 13173, 13174, 13175, 13176, 13177, 13277,13279, 13280, 13282, 13285, 13286, 13291, 13292, 13293, 13300, 13301,13304, 13305, 15806, 15807, 13445, 13446, 13447, 13449, 13452, 13453,13885, 13887, 13891, 13893, 13898, 13899, 13904, 13905, 14509, 14512,14515, 14524, 14525, 14526, 14521, 14522, 14523, 14530, 14534, 14518,14519 and 14520 of 2023 W.P.No.11630 of 2023:- 1/73 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.11630 of 2023 and etc., batch M/s.LKS Gold House Private Limited, Represented by its Joint Managing Director,No.60, Usman Road,T.Nagar,Chennai – 600 017PAN: AAACL7611F Vs ... Petitioner 1.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – 3(3), Income Tax Department, 108, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai – 600 034. 2. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – 3(4), Income Tax Department, No.108, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai – 600 034. 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Chennai – 1, Income Tax Department, 108, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai – 600 034. ... Respondents Prayer:Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the Writ Petitioner on the file of the second respondent to quash the impugned order dated 31.03.2023 for the Assessment Year 2016-2017 in DIN & Order No.ITBA/AST/S/153C/2022-2023/1051769918(1). 2/73 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis For Petitioners: In W.P.Nos.11630, 11635, : Mr.A.S.Sriram11644, 11633, 11636, 11638, 14918, 14934, 14930, 14927 & 14929 of 2023 In W.P.No.13139 of 2023:Mr.J.D.Mistrifor Mr.R.SivaramanIn W.P.Nos.12686, 12688, : Mr.R.Sivaraman12691, 13142, 13432, 13438, 13442, 13443, 13436, 13602, 13609, 13616, 13619, 13625, 14379, 14384, 14387 & 14391 of 2023In W.P.Nos.12018, 12021, :M/s.Vandana Vyas for 13771, 16431, 13775 & 13781 Mr.R.Sivaramanof 2023In W.P.No.13114, 13117, :M/s.Hema Muralikrishnan13119, 13125 & 13129 of 2023 In W.P.Nos.13489, 13494, : Mr.S.Ramamurthy13500 & 13504 of 2023 For Respondents: In all the cases:Mr.A.P.Srinivas,Senior Standing Counseland Mr.A.N.R.Jayaprathap,Junior Standing Counsel COMMON ORDER 3/73https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.11630 of 2023 and etc., batch By this common order all these writ petitions are being disposed of. 2. In these writ petitions, the respective petitioners have challenged the respective impugned Assessment Orders passed under Section 153C read with Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Scrutiny Assessment Orders passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The details of the respective writ petitioners challenging the Impugned Orders are as under:- Table 1:- 4/73 5/73 [Note 1: * cases at SI. No: 6, 8, 16, 41 and 45 are regular scrutiny assessment 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Note 2: Rest of the AO’s are AO’s passed under Section 153C read with Section 143(3) of the Income tax Act.] W.P.No.11630 of 2023 and etc., batch 4. Respective scrutiny assessment orders passed under Section 143(3) By this common order all these writ petitions are being disposed of. 2. In these writ petitions, the respective petitioners have challenged the respective impugned Assessment Orders passed under Section 153C read with Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Scrutiny Assessment Orders passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The details of the respective writ petitioners challenging the Impugned Orders are as under:- Table 1:- 4/73 5/73 [Note 1: * cases at SI. No: 6, 8, 16, 41 and 45 are regular scrutiny assessment 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Note 2: Rest of the AO’s are AO’s passed under Section 153C read with Section 143(3) of the Income tax Act.] W.P.No.11630 of 2023 and etc., batch 4. Respective scrutiny assessment orders passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 merely coincides with the proceedings initiated against these petitioners under Section 153C of the IT Act, 1961 for six years, immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the search was conducted at the premises of M/s Mohanlal Jewellers (P) Ltd, (hereinafter referred to as searched persons on 10.11.2020. 5. In W.P.No.13139 of 2023, Impugned Order dated 31.03.2023 was challenged for the Assessment Year 2015-2016 filed by M/s.GRT Jewellers (India) Pvt Limited. 6. As Assessment Year 2015-2016 does not fall within six years, immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the search was conducted at the premises of searched persons, it is delinked and dealt with separately from the rest of the above writ petitions. 7. These petitioners were issued with Notices under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on various dates for the Assessment Years between 2016-2017 and 2020-2021. Meanwhile, returns under Section 139 of the 8/73 W.P.No.11630 of 2023 and etc., batch 2021- 2022 were filed by these petitioners under Income Tax Act, 1961. Thus, proceedings have culminated in the impugned orders which are subject matter of these Writ Petitions. 8. The background to proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against each of the Petitioner is a search that was conducted at the premises of the said “searched person” on 10.11.2020. 9. During the course of the search under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1962, statements were recorded from the following persons of the “searched persons” on the following dates under the following provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961:- 10. In most of the cases, the Assessing Officer of the respective petitioners i.e, the “other persons” under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the “searched person” i.e., M/s.Mohanlal Jewellers (P) Ltd, are 9/73 W.P.No.11630 of 2023 and etc., batch one and the same. In few cases, the Assessing Officer of the “searched person” and “other persons” are different. 11. The search was carried at the secret office of the “searched person” located at No.16/5, 3[rd] Floor, Swami Thiru Nilagandanayanar Street near Jain Temple, Kondithope, Chennai – 600 001 on 10.11.2020. The search team found a customized software named “J Pack” that was being used for recording unaccounted gold and cash transactions. The search team seized a I ball Desktop PC and pen drive related to “J Pack” maintained by Mr. Rajendra Kothari, the Accountant of the “searched person”. 12. In the statement recorded on 10.11.2020, Mr. Rajendra Kothari, the Accountant of the “searched person” stated that he was working in the secret office as per the instruction of Mr. Suresh Khatri, the Director of the “searched person” and that he was using the aforesaid Personal Computer for making entries as per the data provided in a pen drive by Mr. Suresh Khatri and Mr. Kishore Khatri (relative and an employee of Mr. Sureseh Khatri) till 27.10.2019. 10/73 W.P.No.11630 of 2023 and etc., batch 13. Mr. Rajendra Kothari also stated that after 27.10.2019, the same 12. In the statement recorded on 10.11.2020, Mr. Rajendra Kothari, the Accountant of the “searched person” stated that he was working in the secret office as per the instruction of Mr. Suresh Khatri, the Director of the “searched person” and that he was using the aforesaid Personal Computer for making entries as per the data provided in a pen drive by Mr. Suresh Khatri and Mr. Kishore Khatri (relative and an employee of Mr. Sureseh Khatri) till 27.10.2019. 10/73 W.P.No.11630 of 2023 and etc., batch 13. Mr. Rajendra Kothari also stated that after 27.10.2019, the same operation was carried out in the office of the “searched person” at NSC Bose Road, Sowcarpet, Chennai. He is further alleged to have stated that Mr. Suresh Khatri had provided him with a Red Sandisk Pen Drive along with a Lenovo laptop to access the “J Pack” and that he used to handover the Laptop and the pen drive to Mr. Suresh Khatri the Director of the “searched person” after making entries on a regular basis. 14. In his statement for the Financial Year 2020-2021, Mr. Rajendra Kothari also stated that the information was maintained in the sandisk pen drive inside a black laptop which was handed over to one Kishore Khatri through one Sarvan, also an employee of the “searched persons.” 15. In the said statement, Mr. Rajendra Kothari, the Accountant had also stated that the pen drive contained account data of various persons for the Assessment Year 2016-2017 to 2019-2020 which included these petitioners. 11/73 W.P.No.11630 of 2023 and etc., batch 16. Mr. Suresh Khatri, the Director of the “searched person” in his statement u/s 132(4) has confirmed the statement of Mr. Rajesh Kothari, the Accountant of the “searched person”. 17. The challenge to the respective Assessment Orders passed by the Assessing Officers are primarily on the ground that the Assessing Officer(s) have failed to consider the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Super Malls (P) Ltd v CIT, (2020) 4 SCC 581. There the Court held that when the Assessing Officer of searched person and third person is same, it is sufficient by Assessing Officer to record in satisfaction note that documents seized from searched person belonged to other person and there is no requirement of transmitting documents so seized from searched person. It is submitted that that initiation of proceedings Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were time barred. 18. Secondly, it is submitted that there was a gross violation of principles of natural justice for not allowing any of the respective petitioners to cross examine Mr. Suresh Khatri, the Director of the “searched person” and Mr. Rajendra Kothari, the Accountant of the “searched person”. 12/73 W.P.No.11630 of 2023 and etc., batch 19. It is submitted that the person’s whose sworn statements were relied upon for initiating the proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were not produced for cross examination. In this connection, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Andaman Timber Industries v CCE, (2016) 15 SCC 785 was invited. It is therefore submitted that the respective impugned assessment orders are liable to be quashed. 20. It is further submitted that impugned assessment orders have been passed beyond the time prescribed for passing assessments orders and thus contrary to Section 153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 21. The satisfaction notes of the Assessing Officer of the “searched person” and the respective petitioners (the “other person”) under Section 153C of the IT Act, 1961, confirms that the books of accounts/ documents seized from the premises of the “searched person” had a bearing on the 13/73 W.P.No.11630 of 2023 and etc., batch determination of the total income of these petitioners for six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search was conducted. 20. It is further submitted that impugned assessment orders have been passed beyond the time prescribed for passing assessments orders and thus contrary to Section 153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 21. The satisfaction notes of the Assessing Officer of the “searched person” and the respective petitioners (the “other person”) under Section 153C of the IT Act, 1961, confirms that the books of accounts/ documents seized from the premises of the “searched person” had a bearing on the 13/73 W.P.No.11630 of 2023 and etc., batch determination of the total income of these petitioners for six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search was conducted. 22. It is submitted that the assessment proceedings were concluded based on invalid notices issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is submitted that as per section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, before the commencement of the proceedings to assess or reassess the income of an assessee u/s 153C, the jurisdictional Assessing Officer was required:- i. To record a satisfaction that the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned belongs to or pertain to any information contained therein, related to the petitioner, i.e person other than the searched person referred to in section 153A; andor documents or assets seized or requisitioned belongs to or pertain to any information contained therein, related to the petitioner, i.e person other than the searched person referred to in section 153A; and ii. that the books of account or documents or assets so seized or requisitioned had a bearing on the determination of total income of the petitioner’s viz a ‘other person’ for the relevant assessment year or years referred to in section 153C(1).so seized or requisitioned had a bearing on the determination of total income of the petitioner’s viz a ‘other person’ for the relevant assessment year or years referred to in section 153C(1). 23. All these Petitioners uniformly state that they had no unexplained transactions with the “search person” during these assessment. It is further submitted that the names in the JPACK does not match with initials and code 14/73 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.11630 of 2023 and etc., batch names of these petitioners and thus the proceedings initiated based on the statements of Mr. Rajesh Kothari , the accountant and the Mr.Suresh Khatri of the “searched person” are liable to be interfered. 24. It is submitted that there was a jurisdictional error in assuming the power under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is submitted that the ‘satisfaction note’ could not record any satisfaction to initiate proceeding against these petitioners. 25. It is submitted that the word ‘satisfaction’ refers to a conclusion drawn or a finding recorded on the material available and the satisfaction should reflect that on the basis of the material pertained to the “other person”. It is submitted that prima facie there was no case for fastening tax liability on these Petitioners. 26. The Petitioners have relied upon Circular No 24/2015 in F.no.279/Misc/140/2015/ITJ dated 31.12.2015, wherein the time limit to record the satisfaction has been explained. It is submitted that several High Courts have held that the provisions of section 153C of the Act is substantially similar or pari materia to the provisions of the Section 158BD of the Act as it stood before its deletion. 15/73 W.P.No.11630 of 2023 and etc., batch 27. Therefore, for the purpose of assessment of the income of the person other than the “searched person”, the guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs Calcutta Knitwear Ludhiana (2014) 6 SCC 444 will apply to proceedings u/s 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which has been accepted by the Central Board of Direct Taxes vide dated 31.12.2015 in Circular No 24/2015 in F.no.279/Misc/140/2015/ITJ. 15/73 W.P.No.11630 of 2023 and etc., batch 27. Therefore, for the purpose of assessment of the income of the person other than the “searched person”, the guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs Calcutta Knitwear Ludhiana (2014) 6 SCC 444 will apply to proceedings u/s 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which has been accepted by the Central Board of Direct Taxes vide dated 31.12.2015 in Circular No 24/2015 in F.no.279/Misc/140/2015/ITJ. 28. It is submitted that the above Circular mandates that the Assessing Officer has to record a satisfaction and issue a satisfaction note within a stipulated period as per the guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT-III VS Calcutta Knitwears. Ludhiana (2014) 6 SCC 444. 29. It is submitted that the respondent Assessing Officer has ignored both the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT-III VS Calcutta Knitwears. Ludhiana (2014) 6 SCC 444 and Central Board of Direct Taxes vide dated 31.12.2015 in Circular No 24/2015 in F.no.279/Misc/140/2015/ITJ before issuing notices under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act,1961. 16/73 30. It is submitted that as per the third proviso to Section 153B (1) of the Income tax Act, 1961 “the period of limitation for completing the assessment or reassessment in case of “other person” like the petitioner is twelve months from the end of the financial year in which the last of the authorization for search under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was made (or) for requisition under section 132A was executed or twelve months from the end of the financial year in which books of accounts or documents or assets seized or requisitioned were handed over under section 153C to the Assessing officer having jurisdiction over such person, whichever is later. 31. It was submitted that the jurisdictional Assessing Officer of the petitioners and that of the “searched person” in most of the cases are one and the same. Therefore, the question of handing over of the searched material did not arise and hence the time limit for completing the assessment expired on 31.03.2022, being 12 months from the end of the financial year in which the last of the authorization for search under section 132 or for requisition under section 132A was executed. It is therefore submitted that the second limb of 17/73 W.P.No.11630 of 2023 and etc., batch 3[rd] proviso to Section 153B(1) did not apply as the search was by the same jurisdictional Assessing officer. 32. The cases of the respective Petitioner company along with their Directors and Partnership Firms along and their Partners have been discussed together and disposed in separate part of this order. 33. As mentioned above, the challenge to Scrutiny Assessment Orders respective Assessment Year 2021-2022 is dealt with separately in separate part of this order. Before dealing further, I shall briefly give the outlines of the cases of each of the petitioners and the relevant timelines. M/S. KLP PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ITS DIRECTORS. 34. The Petitioners M/s. KLP Projects Private Ltd who are engaged in the construction and development of properties, has challenged the following Assessment Order all dated 31.03.2023 in the following Writ Petitions:- S.No. W.P.No.Assessment Dateof Date of Assessed income u/s 18/73 19/73 36. The Petitioner Mr. Maneesh Parmar, the Director of M/s. KLP Projects Private has challenged the following assessment order all dated 31.03.2023 in the following Writ Petitions:- 20/73 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 37. The timeline relevant to the case of the petitioner are as follows:- M/S. KLP PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ITS DIRECTORS. 34. The Petitioners M/s. KLP Projects Private Ltd who are engaged in the construction and development of properties, has challenged the following Assessment Order all dated 31.03.2023 in the following Writ Petitions:- S.No. W.P.No.Assessment Dateof Date of Assessed income u/s 18/73 19/73 36. The Petitioner Mr. Maneesh Parmar, the Director of M/s. KLP Projects Private has challenged the following assessment order all dated 31.03.2023 in the following Writ Petitions:- 20/73 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 37. The timeline relevant to the case of the petitioner are as follows:- W.P.No.11630 of 2023 and etc., batch22.03.2023 Respondent issued proceedings for the AY 2021-22 while rejecting the objections of the petitioner. 23.03.2023 Respondent issued a show cause notice to furnish details or documents as per the notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act on or before 27.03.2023.27.03.2023 Petitioner submitted the available records and stated that there was no connection with M/s Mohanlal Jewellers (P) Ltd in any of the AY. 31.03.2023 Impugned order was issued by the Respondent. 38. The Petitioner Mr.Sunil Khetpalia, the Director of M/s. KLP Projects Private has challenged the following Assessment Order all dated 31.03.2023 in the following Writ Petitions:- W.P.No.11630 of 2023 and etc., batch 39. The timeline relevant to the case of the petitioner are as follows:- LKS GOLD HOUSE 40.The Petitioner LKS Gold House has challenged the following Assessment Order all dated 31.03.2023 in the following Writ Petitions:- 24/73 41. The timeline relevant to the case of the petitioner are as follows:- W.P.No.11630 of 2023 and etc., batchpetitioner on 12.07.2022.29.11.2022 Notice u/s 142(1) was issued referring to the sworn statement and the details obtained from the searched person as per Section 153A. 05.12.2022 Petitioner filed their response objecting to the inferences made in the sworn statements and the seized material. 09.01.2023 Notice u/s 142(1) was issued seeking details as per the annexure. 12.01.2023 The Petitioner filed their response with the details as requested by the Petitioner. 18.01.2023 A letter was issued to intimate the Petitioner regarding the jurisdiction of the Writ petition was transferred from the First respondent to the Second Respondent. 09.03.2023 A show cause notice was issued by the Second Respondent for W.P. No: 11633, 11636, 11638 of 2023. 19.03.2023 A Show cause notice was issued by the Second Respondent. 20.03.2023 Petitioner filed their response to the show cause notice by raising objections. 21.03.2023 The Second Respondent disposed off the objections raised by the Petitioner. 23.03.2023 Petitioner filed their response to the above communication and reiterated their objections and lack of considerations. 28.03.2023 Second Respondent issued a letter denying the request for cross examination. 29.03.2023 Petitioner filed their response to the above communication. 31.03.2023 The Second Respondent passed the assessment order. RM APPAVU CHETTIYAR 42. The Petitioner RM Appavu Chettiyar, who is engaged in the business of manufacturing of jewellery has challenged the following assessment orders all dated 31.03.2023 in the following Writ Petitions:- S.No. W.P.No.AYs.Date of notice Date of the Assessed income u/s u/s 153C.Assessment 143(3) r/w Section 153C26/73 43. The timeline relevant to the case of the petitioner in W.P. Nos 14918, 14934 & 14930 of 2023 for the Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20 are as follows:- W.P. Nos. 14918, 14934 and 14930 of 2023 for the Assessment Years2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) 27/73 RM APPAVU CHETTIYAR 42. The Petitioner RM Appavu Chettiyar, who is engaged in the business of manufacturing of jewellery has challenged the following assessment orders all dated 31.03.2023 in the following Writ Petitions:- S.No. W.P.No.AYs.Date of notice Date of the Assessed income u/s u/s 153C.Assessment 143(3) r/w Section 153C26/73 43. The timeline relevant to the case of the petitioner in W.P. Nos 14918, 14934 & 14930 of 2023 for the Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20 are as follows:- W.P. Nos. 14918, 14934 and 14930 of 2023 for the Assessment Years2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) 27/73 W.P.No.11630 of 2023 and etc., batchsame as original filed u/s 139 of the Act.03.03.2022 Notice u/s 142(1) was issued seeking details of those mentioned in the annexure.08.03.2022 Show cause notice issued by the R1. Filed the Return of Income on the web portal as per the notice issued u/s 142(1). 13.12.2022 Notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued by referring to the statement and details obtained from the searched person in terms of Section 153A. 19.12.2022 Response to the notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act was filed by the petitioner and objected to the inference made on the analysis of the sworn statement and seized material as referred by the R1. 24.01.2023 Petitioner received a notice intimating the change of the incumbent in the office of the First Respondent and in view of the provisions of S. 129 of the Act. 25.01.2023 Response was filed by the Petitioner with respect to the notice issued on 24.01.2023. 24.02.2023 Notice u/s 143(2) was issued by the First Respondent. The Petitioner filed his response seeking copies of the sworn statement while filing objections with respect to the materials shared with the Writ Petitioner. 08.03.2023 The First Respondent sent copies of the sworn statement recorded on 04.12.2020 in the hands of Mr. Suresh Khatri to the Petitioner.29.03.2023 Impugned order was issued u/s 153C of the Act. 44. The timeline relevant to the case of the same petitioner in W.P. No. 14927 of 2023 for the Assessment Year 2020-2021 are as under:- WP. No. 14927 of 2023 28/73 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 45. The timeline relevant to the case of the same petitioner in W.P. No.14929 of 2023 for the Assessment Year 2021-2022 are as under:- W.P. No.14292 of 2023 29/73 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis GRT JEWELLERS (INDIA) PVT LTD 46. The Petitioners GRT Jewellers (India) Pvt Ltd has challenged the following assessment order all dated 31.03.2023 in the following Writ Petitions:- 30/73 47. The timeline relevant to the case of the petitioner are as follows:- W.P.No.11630 of 2023 and etc., batch24.03.2023 A Show Cause Notice was issued to the Petitioner due to incomplete details furnished by the petitioners for notices dated 08.12.2022 & 09.01.2023 for AY 2017-18 to 2021-2231.03.2023 Assessment Orders were passed in accordance with section 153C read with section 143(3) for AY 2017-18 to 2021-22 G R ANANTHAPADMANABHAN 48. The Petitioner G.R.Ananthapadmanabhan, being a proprietor of GRT Jewellers (India) Pvt Ltd challenged the following assessment order all dated 31.03.2023 in the following Writ Petitions:- W.P.No.11630 of 2023 and etc., batch4.13442 of 2020-202122.03.202331.03.2023 14,09,88,100 + 3,67,35,874 2023+ 0 = 17,77,23,9745.13443 of 2021-202222.03.202331.03.2023 17,74,50,520 + 4,10,74,917+ 20230 = 21,85,25,437 49. The timeline relevant to the case of the petitioner are as follows:- G RAJENDRAN 50. The Petitioner G. Rajendran, being a proprietor of GRT Jewellers (India) Pvt Ltd has challenged the following assessment order all dated 31.03.2023 in the following Writ Petitions:- 33/73 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.11630 of 2023 and etc., batch ORIGINAL KERALA JEWELLERS:- W.P.No.11630 of 2023 and etc., batch4.13442 of 2020-202122.03.202331.03.2023 14,09,88,100 + 3,67,35,874 2023+ 0 = 17,77,23,9745.13443 of 2021-202222.03.202331.03.2023 17,74,50,520 + 4,10,74,917+ 20230 = 21,85,25,437 49. The timeline relevant to the case of the petitioner are as follows:- G RAJENDRAN 50. The Petitioner G. Rajendran, being a proprietor of GRT Jewellers (India) Pvt Ltd has challenged the following assessment order all dated 31.03.2023 in the following Writ Petitions:- 33/73 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.11630 of 2023 and etc., batch ORIGINAL KERALA JEWELLERS:- 52. The Petitioner Original Kerala Jewellers, engaged in the business of jewellery retail has challenged the following assessment order all dated 31.03.2023 in the following Writ Petitions:- 53. The timeline relevant to the case of the petitioner are as follows:- 36/73 MUTHUSWAMY GOUNDER PALLANIAPPAN 54.The Petitioner Muthuswamy Gounder Pallaniappan, proprietor of a jewellery shop has challenged the following assessment order all dated 31.03.2023 in the following Writ Petitions:- 37/73 W.P.No.11630 of 2023 and etc., batch 55. The timeline relevant to the case of the petitioner are as follows:- W.P.No.11630 of 2023 and etc., batch 56. The Petitioner has relied upon Section 2(12A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which provides for the definition for books or books of accounts. It is submitted that as per the definition, books or books of accounts should be in a written form or kept as printouts of data stored in floppy disc, tape or any other form of electro-magnetic storage device. It is submitted that their books of accounts is within ambit of Section 2(12A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is submitted that books or books of accounts will not include ledgers kept in electronic or digital forms in a software application. It is submitted that the software and the pen drive seized does not satisfy the definition of Books of Accounts under the definition of Section 2(12A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the initiation of proceedings u/s 153C and the impugned order passed are invalid. That apart, it is submitted that satisfaction cannot be recorded based on information gathered or seized and therefore the assessment proceedings under Section 153C was wrongly initiated. 57. The learned counsel for the Petitioner relied on the extracts from 39/73 W.P.No.11630 of 2023 and etc., batch the Explanatory notes to the Finance Act, 2022 to state that clause (12A) of section 2 of the Act was amended to provide that the definition of books or books of accounts would include books or books of account kept in electronic or in digital form or as print outs of data stored in such electronic or in digital form. 58. Thus, it is submitted that the data stored in Pen drive/ Hard disc of a laptop or computer was not books or books of account for the purpose of Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 59. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon CIT v. Vatika Township Pvt Ltd, 2014 AIR SCW 5674, K Sashidhar v. Indian Overseas Bank, AIR 2019 SC(C) 1170, Bhagat Ram Sharma v. UOI, AIR 1988 SC 740, Katta Sujatha Reddy v Siddamsetty Infra, AIR 2022 SC 5435, Shankarappa v. Cooperative Election Commission, 2014 (2) AKR 529, M Suresh v Mahadevamma, 2021 (2) AKR 329, Vysya Bank v. DCWT (2008) 299 ITR 335 and Keshavlal Jethalal Shah v. Mohanlal Bhawandas, AIR 1968 SC 1336. 40/73 58. Thus, it is submitted that the data stored in Pen drive/ Hard disc of a laptop or computer was not books or books of account for the purpose of Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 59. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon CIT v. Vatika Township Pvt Ltd, 2014 AIR SCW 5674, K Sashidhar v. Indian Overseas Bank, AIR 2019 SC(C) 1170, Bhagat Ram Sharma v. UOI, AIR 1988 SC 740, Katta Sujatha Reddy v Siddamsetty Infra, AIR 2022 SC 5435, Shankarappa v. Cooperative Election Commission, 2014 (2) AKR 529, M Suresh v Mahadevamma, 2021 (2) AKR 329, Vysya Bank v. DCWT (2008) 299 ITR 335 and Keshavlal Jethalal Shah v. Mohanlal Bhawandas, AIR 1968 SC 1336. 40/73 60. It is further submitted that the procedure under Section 65B of The Evidence Act, 1872 was not followed. It is submitted that it is a mandatory requirement for the admissibility of evidence of a computer printout and therefore it cannot be relied upon. The Petitioner has relied upon Vetrivel Madras v ACIT (2021) 437 ITR 178 (Mad) wherein it was held that when the assessments framed on the basis of the electronic records which were copies of excel sheet, excel work note book, failing to comply with Section 65B of The Evidence Act, 1872 was inadmissible in the eyes of law and rendered the document inadmissible piece in the eyes of the law. 61. The above petitioners have challenged the impugned assessment orders dated on 29.03.2023, 30.03.2023 and 31.03.2023 as mentioned above. It is submitted that the limitation for completing the assessment have expired on 31.03.2022 starting from 01.04.2021 and ending on 31.03.2022. 41/73 W.P.No.11630 of 2023 and etc., batch62. It is submitted that as far as the petitioner is concerned, the Assessing Officer of the searched person and that of the petitioner are one and the same. It is submitted that as the Assessing Officer of the searched person, the Assessing Officer has given a satisfaction note on 08.02.2022 and as the Assessing Officer of the petitioner (other person), the satisfaction note was prepared only on 11.02.0222 although the search was made on 10.11.2020. 63. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respective petitioners and the learned Senior Standing Counsel and Junior Standing Counsel for the respondents in these writ petitions. 64. I have also perused the impugned orders and the documents that were filed by the respective petitioners along with their typed set of documents. 65. I have also considered the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the rules made thereunder and the case laws submitted in support of the writ petitions and against the writ petitions. 42/73 W.P.No.11630 of 2023 and etc., batch 66. Muthuswamy Gounder Pallaniappan, the petitioner in W.P.Nos.13489, 13494, 13500 & 13504 of 2023 has raised certain other ground in addition to the grounds raised by each of the petitioner on the question of limitation i.e both in issuing notices under Section 153C, preparation of the satisfaction note of the “searched person” and in passing the impugned “Assessment Order” under Section 153C read with Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 67. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the definition of “Document” in Section 3 which is an interpretation clause in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is slightly different from the definition of “Document” in Section 2 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Information Technology Act, 2000. 43/73 W.P.No.11630 of 2023 and etc., batch 68. The definition of the document in these three enactments are reproduced below:- 69. Section 65A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as special provisions relating to electronic record. 70. Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 reads as under:- 44/73 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 45/73 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.11630 of 2023 and etc., batch 67. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the definition of “Document” in Section 3 which is an interpretation clause in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is slightly different from the definition of “Document” in Section 2 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Information Technology Act, 2000. 43/73 W.P.No.11630 of 2023 and etc., batch 68. The definition of the document in these three enactments are reproduced below:- 69. Section 65A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as special provisions relating to electronic record. 70. Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 reads as under:- 44/73 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 45/73 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.11630 of 2023 and etc., batch “65B.Admissibility of electronic records.–– (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any information contained in an electronic record which is printed on a paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer (hereinafter referred to as the computer output) shall be deemed to be also a document, if the conditions mentioned in this section are satisfied in relation to the information and computer in question and shall be admissible in any proceedings, without further proof or production of the original, as evidence or any contents of the original or of any fact stated therein of which direct evidence would be admissible. (2) The conditions referred to in sub-section (1) in respect of a computer output shall be the following, namely:- a) the computer output containing the information was produced by the computer during the period over which the computer was used regularly to store or process information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period by the person having lawful control over the use of the computer; was produced by the computer during the period over which the computer was used regularly to store or process information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period by the person having lawful control over the use of the computer; b) during the said period, information of the kind contained in the electronic record or of the kind from which the information so contained is derived was regularly fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities; contained in the electronic record or of the kind from which the information so contained is derived was regularly fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities; c) throughout the material part of the said period, the computer was operating properly or, if not, then in respect of any period in which it was not operating properly or was out of operation during that part of the period, was not such as to affect the electronic record or the accuracy of its contents; and computer was operating properly or, if not, then in respect of any period in which it was not operating properly or was out of operation during that part of the period, was not such as to affect the electronic record or the accuracy of its contents; and d) the information contained in the electronic record reproduces or is derived from such information fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the reproduces or is derived from such information fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the 46/73 said activities. (3) Where over any period, the function of storing or processing information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period as mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (2) was regularly performed by computers, whether–– a) by a combination of computers operating over that period; period; b) by different computers operating in succession over that period; or over that period; or c) by different combinations of computers operating in succession over that period; orin succession over that period; or 46/73 said activities. (3) Where over any period, the function of storing or processing information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period as mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (2) was regularly performed by computers, whether–– a) by a combination of computers operating over that period; period; b) by different computers operating in succession over that period; or over that period; or c) by different combinations of computers operating in succession over that period; orin succession over that period; or d) in any other manner involving the successive operation over that period, in whatever order, of one or more computers and one or more combinations of computers, all the computers used for that purpose during that period shall be treated for the purposes of this section as constituting a single computer; and references in this section to a computer shall be construed accordingly. operation over that period, in whatever order, of one or more computers and one or more combinations of computers, all the computers used for that purpose during that period shall be treated for the purposes of this section as constituting a single computer; and references in this section to a computer shall be construed accordingly. (4) In any proceedings where it is desired to give a statement in evidence by virtue of this section, a certificate doing any of the following things, that is to say, –– a) identifying the electronic record containing the statement and describing the manner in which it was produced; statement and describing the manner in which it was produced; b) giving such particulars of any device involved in the production of that electronic record as may be appropriate for the purpose of showing that the electronic record was produced by a computer;the production of that electronic record as may be appropriate for the purpose of showing that the electronic record was produced by a computer; c) dealing with any of the matters to which the conditions mentioned in sub-section (2) relate, conditions mentioned in sub-section (2) relate, 47/73 and purporting to be signed by a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device or the management of the relevant activities (whichever is appropriate) shall be evidence of any matter stated in the certificate; and for the purposes of this sub- section it shall be sufficient for a matter to be stated to the best of the knowledge and belief of the person stating it. (5)For the purposes of this section, - a) information shall be taken to be supplied to a computer if it is supplied thereto in any appropriate form and whether it is so supplied directly or (with or without human intervention) by means of any appropriate equipment;if it is supplied thereto in any appropriate form and whether it is so supplied directly or (with or without human intervention) by means of any appropriate equipment; b) whether in the course of activities carried on by any official, information is supplied with a view to its being stored or processed for the purposes of those activities by a computer operated otherwise than in the course of those activities, that information, if duly supplied to that computer, shall be taken to be supplied to it in the course of those activities;official, information is supplied with a view to its being stored or processed for the purposes of those activities by a computer operated otherwise than in the course of those activities, that information, if duly supplied to that computer, shall be taken to be supplied to it in the course of those activities; b) whether in the course of activities carried on by any official, information is supplied with a view to its being stored or processed for the purposes of those activities by a computer operated otherwise than in the course of those activities, that information, if duly supplied to that computer, shall be taken to be supplied to it in the course of those activities;official, information is supplied with a view to its being stored or processed for the purposes of those activities by a computer operated otherwise than in the course of those activities, that information, if duly supplied to that computer, shall be taken to be supplied to it in the course of those activities; c) a computer output shall be taken to have been produced by a computer whether it was produced by it directly or (with or without human intervention) by means of any appropriate equipment. produced by a computer whether it was produced by it directly or (with or without human intervention) by means of any appropriate equipment. Explanation.––For the purposes of this section any reference to information being derived from other information shall be a reference to its being derived therefrom by calculation, comparison or any other process.] ” W.P.No.11630 of 2023 and etc., batch 71. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 applies to all judicial proceedings in or before any Court including Courts-martial, [other than Courts-martial convened under the Army Act (44 & 45 Vict., c. 58)] [the Naval Discipline Act [29 & 30 Vict., 109]; or 6[ *** ] the Indian Navy (Discipline) Act, 1934 (34 of 1934),] [or the Air Force Act (7 Geo. 5, c. 51)]. It does not apply to even proceedings before an arbitrator. Provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 do not apply to a Quasi judicial proceedings before a Quasi-judicial officer such as Assessing Officer under various Tax Law or Appellate Authority and Tribunal under them. 72. Section 1 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 in Chapter 1 deals with Short Title, Extent and Commencement of the Act. It clearly delineates applicability of the Act which reads as under:- “1. Short title, extent and commencement:- This Act may be called The Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It extends to the whole of India [***] and applies to all judicial proceedings in or before any Court, including 48/73 W.P.No.11630 of 2023 and etc., batch Courts-martial, [other than Courts-martial convened under the Army Act (44 & 45 Vict., c. 58)] [the Naval Discipline Act [29 & 30 Vict., 109]; or 6[ *** ] the Indian Navy (Discipline) Act, 1934 (34 of 1934),] [or the Air Force Act (7 Geo. 5, c. 51)] but not to affidavits presented to any Court or officer, nor to proceedings before an arbitrator; and it shall come into force on the first day of September, 1872. 73. These provisions are relevant only for civil and criminal proceedings before the court of law. As far as Assessment proceedings are concerned, the Assessing Officers are not governed by the strict rules of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 74. Therefore, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunder Vs. State, MANU/SC/0282/23 and in the case of P.V. Anwar Vs. P.K Basheer, 2014 AIR SCW 5695 cited are not relevant as they deal with criminal proceedings before the Court. 75. The Assessment proceedings under the Income Tax Act, 1961 before an Assessing Officer is not a judicial proceeding. It is a Quasi judicial proceeding before a Quasi judicial offic