Shri Devendra Sharma v. The Principal Director Of Income Tax, (Investigation),Jaipur.jaipur

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16561/2019 Shri Devendra Sharma S/o Shri Ghanshyam Sharma, AgedAbout 33 Years, R/o Flat No. 201, Plot No. 46, Lane No. 06,Dharampark Colony, Ajmer Road, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The Principal Director Of Income Tax, (Investigation),Jaipur.Jaipur. 2. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1, Income Tax Department, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahendra Gargieya Mr. Devang Gargieya Mr. Hemang Gargieya Mr. Devang Gargieya Mr. Hemang Gargieya For Respondent(s): Mr. Siddharth Bapna with Mr. Mehyul Mittal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 13/08/2024 1.Petitioner has preferred this writ petition inter alia praying for the following reliefs:- “a) The impugned warrant of authorizationmay be quashed and set aside, and searchproceedings under Section 132 be declaredvoid-ab-initio and illegal. b) The impugned notices issued under Section153 dated 22.03.2019 for A.Y. 2012-13 to2017-18, (“Annexure – P/14”) may be quashedand set aside.c) May call the complete records related to theimpugned search and seizure conducted, toscrutinize and find out whether the authorityhas appropriately recorded the reasons tobelieve to conduct search and seizure, inaccordance with the law and judicial guidelines. d) The entire record relating to the search andseizure action under Section 132 allegedlyauthorized by the Principal Director of IncomeTax (Investigation) i.e. the Respondent No.1may be summoned. e) Any other appropriate order or directionwhich the Hon’ble Court may deem fit andproper, in the facts and circumstances of thecase, may also kindly be passed or given infavour of the Petitioner-assessee to protect hisright and interest.” 2.It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the validityof search warrant of authorization was without any authority. Noreason was recorded before issuing the warrant of authorizationand the warrant of authorization was blank. It is also contendedthat the issuance of warrant of authorization cannot be challengedbefore the Income Tax Authorities and the only remedy which wasavailable to the petitioner was of filing a writ petition. 3.It is further contended that the writ petition was filed inSeptember, 2019, thereafter, the assessment order was passed inDecember, 2019. The petitioner was forced to participate in theproceedings and notices were issued to him. Against theassessment order, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner whichwas also dismissed on 26.04.2024. It is also contended that if theassessment order has been passed and the appeal against whichhas been dismissed, the petitioner can press the writ petition aswarrant of authorization in consonance of which the search took-place was voidab-initio. 4.Mr. Siddharth Bapna appearing for the respondent hasopposed the writ petition. It is contended that filing of the writ,the passing of the assessment order and the dismissal of theabove have not been disputed. The petitioner participated in theassessment proceedings and thereafter filed appeal before the Appellate Authority, which was dismissed by the authority. Thepetitioner herein has now challenged the warrant of authorizationand the validity of search. 5.It is also contended that the search took place in August,2017 and the writ petition has been filed in September, 2019 i.e.after a delay of two years. On this ground alone, the writ petitionshould be dismissed. Counsel appearing for the respondent hasplaced reliance on Ashok Commercial Enterprise Vs. AssistantCommissioner of Income Taxation:(2023) 9 TMI 335. 6.We have considered the contentions. Appellate Authority, which was dismissed by the authority. Thepetitioner herein has now challenged the warrant of authorizationand the validity of search. 5.It is also contended that the search took place in August,2017 and the writ petition has been filed in September, 2019 i.e.after a delay of two years. On this ground alone, the writ petitionshould be dismissed. Counsel appearing for the respondent hasplaced reliance on Ashok Commercial Enterprise Vs. AssistantCommissioner of Income Taxation:(2023) 9 TMI 335. 6.We have considered the contentions. 7.It is an admitted position that the search took place inAugust, 2017 and the writ petition was filed in the year 2019 i.e.after a lapse of two years. Thereafter, the petitioner hasparticipated in the assessment proceedings and has also filedappeal against the assessment order, which was dismissed byorder dated 26.04.2024. The warrant of authorization or thevalidity of search cannot be gone into at this stage when theassessment order has been finalized by the Income TaxAuthorities, hence, we do not find any force in the writ petition.The present Civil Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. 8. Stay application stands disposed. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J (PANKAJ BHANDARI),J MAHIMA/61