T.t.v.dinakaran v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,Central Circle Ii (2),Chennai-600 034

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 14-12-2018 CORAM THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM W.P.Nos.7623 of 2002 and 1143 and 1144 of 2003 T.T.V.Dinakaran ...Petitioner in all WPs Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,Central Circle II (2),Chennai-600 034. ... R-1 in WP 7623/2002 Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,Central Circle II (5),Chennai-600 034. ... R-2 in WP 7623/2002 Commissioner of Income Tax,Central Circle,Tamil Nadu,Chennai-600 034. ... R-3 in WP 7623/2002 The Deputy Commissioner,Central Circle I,108 Mahatma Gandhi Road,Chennai-600 034.... R-1 in WPs 1143&1144/2003 The Assistant Commissioner,Central Circle II (2),108 Mahatma Gandhi Road,Chennai-600 034.... R-2 in WPs 1143&1144/2003 The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax,Central Range II,108 Mahatma Gandhi Road,Chennai-600 034. ... R-3 in WPs 1143&1144/2003 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ WP No.6923 of 2002 is filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus,forbearing the first and second respondents from making anassessment on the petitioner under Chapter XIV-B of the IncomeTax Act for the Block Period 1987-1988 to 1997-1998 pursuant tothe notice under Section 158-BC issued by the second respondenton 8[th] October 2001. WP Nos.1143 and 1144 of 2003 are filed under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India praying to issue of Writs ofCertiorari, calling for the records in P.A.N.01-D/96-97 andP.A.N.01-D/95-96 dated 15.3.2002 in respect of the AssessmentYear 1996-97 and 1995-1996 on the file of the first respondentand quash the same. The writ petition WP No.1143 of 2003 is filedchallenging the notice issued by the Authorities Competent underSection 148 of the Income Tax Act, for reopening of theassessment year 1996-1997 and WP No.1144 of 2003 is filedchallenging the notice issued by the Authorities Competent underSection 148 of the Income Tax Act, for reopening of theassessment year 1995-1996. 2. Both the abovesaid writ petitions viz., WP Nos.1143and 1144 of 2003 were filed challenging the notices issued bythe Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Act, for thepurpose of reopening the assessments which were alreadyfinalised for the assessment years 1995-1996 and 1996-1997. 3. The third writ petition viz., WP No.7623 of 2002 isfiled by the same writ petitioner with a prayer to forbear thefirst and second respondents from making an assessment on thepetitioner under Chapter XIV-B of the Income Tax Act for theBlock Period 1987-1988 to 1997-1998 pursuant to the noticeissued under Section 158-BC of the Income Tax Act (hereinafterreferred to as the 'Act'), by the second respondent on 8[th]October 2001. 4. The learned counsel for the writ petitioneradvanced his arguments, by commencing the initial ground raisedby the writ, petitioner that the fair opportunity had not beenprovided to the writ petitioner to put forth his case before theAuthorities Competent. The materials gathered during the search https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ operations in the premises of the writ petitioner had not beenshared at all. Thus, the writ petitioner was deprived of hisopportunity of knowing the materials, which were secured at thetime of search operations. This made the writ petitioner unableto submit his defence before the appropriate authorities. 5. Under the Statute, the materials secured during the searchoperations ought to have been served or permitted to be seen bythe persons aggrieved. However, the said mandatory procedureshad not been implemented by the Authorities Competent in thepresent cases and therefore, the rights conferred to the writpetitioner are denied and therefore, the writ petitioner isconstrained to move the present writ petitions. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ operations in the premises of the writ petitioner had not beenshared at all. Thus, the writ petitioner was deprived of hisopportunity of knowing the materials, which were secured at thetime of search operations. This made the writ petitioner unableto submit his defence before the appropriate authorities. 5. Under the Statute, the materials secured during the searchoperations ought to have been served or permitted to be seen bythe persons aggrieved. However, the said mandatory procedureshad not been implemented by the Authorities Competent in thepresent cases and therefore, the rights conferred to the writpetitioner are denied and therefore, the writ petitioner isconstrained to move the present writ petitions. 6. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner is ofan opinion that the notice issued under Section 148 of theIncome Tax Act for reopening of the closed assessment is alsoimpermissible in law. The learned counsel for the writpetitioner is mainly on the ground that parallel proceedingsunder Section 158-BC as well as under Section 148 of the IncomeTax Act is impermissible in law. Such parallel proceedings wouldcause prejudice to the rights of the assessee. In the event ofallowing the authorities to proceed parallelly, the assesseewould be deprived of his opportunity in submitting hisdepositions or defence statements, in both the cases where blockassessment is taken as well as the reopening of the closedassessment. 7. With reference to the abovesaid submission, thelearned counsel for the writ petitioner cited the provisions ofthe Income Tax Act. The learned counsel for the writ petitionerstates that under Section 158-BA as amended through the Finance(No.2) Act, 1998 with effect from 1.7.1995, providesExplanations to the original provision made under Section 158-BAof the Act. The Explanations are provided for the removal ofdoubts and it reads as follows:- “Explanation.—For the removal ofdoubts, it is hereby declared that— (a) the assessment made under thisChapter shall be in addition to the regularassessment in respect of each previous yearincluded in the block period; (b) the total undisclosed incomerelating to the block period shall notinclude the income assessed in any regularassessment as income of such block period; (c) the income assessed in this Chaptershall not be included in the regularassessment of any previous year included inthe block period.” 8. Explanation (b) unambiguously enumerates that thetotal undisclosed income relating to the block period shall notinclude the income assessed in any regular assessment as incomeof such block period. Explanation (c) stipulates that the incomeassessed in this Chapter shall not be included in the regularassessment of any previous year included in the block period. 9. Relying on the abovesaid two Explanations insertedby virtue of amendment Finance (No.2) Act, 1998, implementedwith retrospective effect from 1.7.1995, the learned counsel forthe writ petitioner is of the firm view that the facts andcircumstances of the present lis on hand squarely falls withinthe ambit of these Explanations inserted in the originalprovision under Section 158-BA of the Act. 8. Explanation (b) unambiguously enumerates that thetotal undisclosed income relating to the block period shall notinclude the income assessed in any regular assessment as incomeof such block period. Explanation (c) stipulates that the incomeassessed in this Chapter shall not be included in the regularassessment of any previous year included in the block period. 9. Relying on the abovesaid two Explanations insertedby virtue of amendment Finance (No.2) Act, 1998, implementedwith retrospective effect from 1.7.1995, the learned counsel forthe writ petitioner is of the firm view that the facts andcircumstances of the present lis on hand squarely falls withinthe ambit of these Explanations inserted in the originalprovision under Section 158-BA of the Act. 10. As per the Explanation, there cannot be any twoassessments in respect of the same income. In the present cases,the Assessing Officer is attempting to do so. There is anunambiguity in respect of the actions initiated in this regardby the Assessing Officer by issuing a notice under Section 148of the Act. Even as per the judgment of the Hon'ble SupremeCourt, the aggrieved person at the earliest point of time, isentitled to approach the Court of Law, more specifically, underArticle 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the writpetitioner has established that such a parallel proceedings areimpermissible and would cause prejudice to the rights of thewrit petitioner to defend his case and therefore, the writpetitioner had approached this Court at the first instance andaccordingly, the impugned notices are scrapped. 11. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner statesthat reopening of the closed assessment is permissible only ifthere is no proceedings under Section 158-BC. When the blockproceedings are already initiated with reference to thefinancial year commencing from 1987 to 1996, then the reopeningof the assessment for the years 1995-1996 and 1996-1997 isclearly barred in view of the Explanations inserted in Section158-BA of the Act. At the outset, it is contended that therecannot be two assessments for the same income and therefore, theattempts now made to reopen the assessment already closed on thebasis of the same income is impermissible. 12. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner withreference to Chapter XIV-B of Section 158-B of the Act, statesthat “undisclosed income” is one aspect of the matter and the“block assessment made” is another aspect of the matter.Therefore, the Authorities Competent are empowered to invokeClause (b) of Section 158-B in respect of undisclosed income andnot in respect of the disclosed income. 13. The assessment already made denotes the “disclosedincome”. Therefore, they have to make reassessment only withreference to the undisclosed income and the over all reopeningis impermissible in view of Section 158-B of the Act. 14. The learned Senior Standing Counsel, appearing onbehalf of the Income Tax Department, disputed all thecontentions raised on behalf of the writ petitioner in entirety.The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Income TaxDepartment is of an opinion that the present writ petitions arepremature and not maintainable. The facts and circumstances inall respects are under investigation and under the considerationof the Competent Authorities and in this stage, the High Courtcannot consider the facts and circumstances now placed by thewrit petitioner in the present writ petitions. The disputedfacts are to be adjudicated by the Competent Authorities andonly after arriving a conclusion and passing final orders, anassessee may get the right of appeal under the provisions of theAct and thereafter before the High Court. Contrarily, thepresent writ petitions are filed at the initial stage and liableto be dismissed in limine. 15. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the IncomeTax Department with reference to the arguments in respect of theinterpretation of the provisions of the Act, contended thatChapter XIV-B of Section 158-B stipulates that “unless thecontext otherwise requires,— (a) “block period” means 66(a) theprevious years relevant to ten assessment years preceding theprevious year in which the search was conducted under Section132 or any requisition was made under Section 132-A andincludes, in the previous year in which such search wasconducted or requisition made, the period up to the date of thecommencement of such search or, as the case may be, the date ofsuch requisition. 16. Referring the abovesaid provision, the learnedSenior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department statesthat the Competent Authorities are empowered to take tenassessment years under the provisions of Section 158-B (a) ofthe Act. In the present cases, the ten years period is takenfrom the year 1986, more specifically, the block period isconsidered by the authorities with effect from 1.4.1986 to31.3.1996 and from 1.4.1996 to 15.7.1996. Thus, the AuthoritiesCompetent had taken ten assessment years as block period withreference to the abovesaid Section cited. There is no error orotherwise in respect of the period of ten assessment years takeninto account for the purpose of reopening of the assessmentunder Section 158-B of the Act. Secondly, the learned SeniorStanding Counsel states that the entire actions were initiatedon account of the search conducted by Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA) and with reference to Section 132-A of theAct. 17. Section 132-A of the Income Tax Act stipulatesthat where the Principal Director General or Director Generalor Principal Director or Director or the Principal ChiefCommissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner orCommissioner, in consequence of information in his possession,has reason to believe that— (a) any person to whom a summons under sub-section (1)of Section 37 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922),or under sub-section (1) of Section 131 of this Act, or a noticeunder sub-section (4) of Section 22 of the Indian Income-taxAct, 1922, or under sub-section (1) of Section 142 of this Actwas issued to produce, or cause to be produced, any books ofaccount or other documents has omitted or failed to produce, orcause to be produced, such books of account or other documents,as required by such summons or notice and the said books ofaccount or other documents have been taken into custody by anyofficer or authority under any other law for the time being inforce, or (b) any books of account or other documents will beuseful for, or relevant to, any proceeding under the IndianIncome-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), or under this Act and anyperson to whom a summons or notice as aforesaid has been ormight be issued will not, or would not, produce or cause to beproduced, such books of account or other documents on the returnof such books of account or other documents by any officer orauthority by whom or which such books of account or otherdocuments have been taken into custody under any other law forthe time being in force, or (b) any books of account or other documents will beuseful for, or relevant to, any proceeding under the IndianIncome-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), or under this Act and anyperson to whom a summons or notice as aforesaid has been ormight be issued will not, or would not, produce or cause to beproduced, such books of account or other documents on the returnof such books of account or other documents by any officer orauthority by whom or which such books of account or otherdocuments have been taken into custody under any other law forthe time being in force, or (c) any assets represent either wholly or partlyincome or property which has not been, or would not have been,disclosed for the purposes of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922(11 of 1922), or this Act by any person from whose possession orcontrol such assets have been taken into custody by any officeror authority under any other law for the time being in force,then, the Principal Director General or Director General orPrincipal Director or Director or the Principal ChiefCommissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner orCommissioner may authorise any Additional Director, AdditionalCommissioner, Joint Director, Joint Commissioner, AssistantDirector or Deputy Director, Assistant Commissioner or DeputyCommissioner or Income-tax Officer (hereafter in this sectionand in sub-section (2) of section 278D referred to as therequisitioning officer) to require the officer or authorityreferred to in clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c), as thecase may be, to deliver such books of account, other documentsor assets to the requisitioning officer. 18. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the IncomeTax Department is of the firm opinion that the informations andthe materials received from the FERA on account of the searchtaken by the FERA is also source for initiation of the actionunder the provisions of the Income Tax Act in respect of blockassessment already made with reference to the assessment of thewrit petitioner. The block assessment was taken based on theinformations and for ten years with reference to Section 132-Aof the Act. Thus, there is no error in respect of initiation ofthe action for block assessment as well as the period for whichthe block assessment is taken. 19. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for theIncome Tax Department has fairly said that the Income TaxDepartment is ready and wiling to provide the opportunitiescontemplated under the Act, with reference to the materialsavailable with the Department. Such opportunities will beprovided to the writ petitioner on request and as per theprocedures contemplated. It is further contended that the writpetitioner earlier approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunaland the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal remanded the matter in itsorder dated 4.10.2000. 19. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for theIncome Tax Department has fairly said that the Income TaxDepartment is ready and wiling to provide the opportunitiescontemplated under the Act, with reference to the materialsavailable with the Department. Such opportunities will beprovided to the writ petitioner on request and as per theprocedures contemplated. It is further contended that the writpetitioner earlier approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunaland the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal remanded the matter in itsorder dated 4.10.2000. 20. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Benchremanded the matter on the ground that the Department had notprovided the opportunities contemplated under the Act andtherefore, the principles of natural justice had been violated.In this regard, the learned Senior Standing Counsel for theIncome Tax Department states that the Department is ready toprovide all such opportunities in accordance with law and byfollowing the procedures contemplated. The order dated15.11.1996 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,Central Circle II (5), Chennai-34 also denotes that books anddocuments seized by the Enforcement Directorate in the cases ofthe writ petitioner are available with the AssistantCommissioner of Income Tax. In case, the writ petitioner requireany inspection of those documents, the writ petitioner is atliberty to do so during any working day by giving a requisitionletter one day in advance and by specifying the documentsrequired for inspection. Citing the abovesaid letter dated15.11.1996, the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the IncomeTax Department, states that such an opportunity to be providedhas already been informed to the writ petitioner and it is leftopen to the writ petitioner to avail such opportunity bysubmitting the requisition letter to the Authorities Competent. 21. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner statesthat the writ petitioner made a request and the same has notbeen considered at all. This Court is of an opinion that theprevious happenings in this regard needs no consideration and this Court is of fervent hope that the statement made now beforethis Court by the learned Standing Counsel would be followedscrupulously in the matter of providing opportunity to the writpetitioner in respect of his right to inspect the documents athis request and other opportunities to be provided under the Act. 22. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner citedthe judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of CargoClearing Agency (Gujarat) Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax[(2008) 76 CCH 0915 GujHC], wherein in paragraphs 28, 29, 32 and33, it has been held as under:- this Court is of fervent hope that the statement made now beforethis Court by the learned Standing Counsel would be followedscrupulously in the matter of providing opportunity to the writpetitioner in respect of his right to inspect the documents athis request and other opportunities to be provided under the Act. 22. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner citedthe judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of CargoClearing Agency (Gujarat) Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax[(2008) 76 CCH 0915 GujHC], wherein in paragraphs 28, 29, 32 and33, it has been held as under:- “28. In the present case, none of theexceptional contingencies exist. As alreadynoticed, on a plain reading it becomesdiscernible that there are two separatestreams of procedure provided by theLegislature : (1) under Chapter XIV of the Actwhich provides for “procedure for assessment”,and (2) under Chapter XIV-B of the Act whichprovides for “a special procedure forassessment of search cases”. Only in the eventthe special procedure for assessment has notprovided for some procedure for assessment canone refer to the procedure under Chapter XIVof the Act. Therefore, the interpretationsought to be placed by the Revenue on theprovisions of the Act so as to read in theterm “block period” for the purpose ofinvoking and applying sections 147 to 153 ofthe Act cannot be countenanced. Neither does aplain reading of the provisions permit such anexercise, nor is there any lacuna in theprovisions which is required to be filled up.29. In Chapter XIV-B of the Act the onlyplace where one finds the use of the term“assessment year” is in the definition of theterm “block period”. This itself indicatesthat if the “block period” was equivalent to“assessment year” the definition of blockperiod would not have provided that “blockperiod” means period comprising previous yearsrelevant to 10/6 assessment years. To put itdifferently, reference to the number ofassessment years is only a means, a measure toindicate and specify the period of previousyears which would comprise block period. TheRevenue,therefore,cannotcontendsuccessfullythatwherevertheterm“assessment year” is used in the group ofsections from section 147 to 153 of the Act the said term has to be replaced by the term“block period”. Furthermore, the amendmentwhich is retrospectively made in thedefinition of the block period by the Finance(No. 2) Act, 1996, itself indicates thatoriginally the term “block period” meant asconsisting of 10 previous years prior to theprevious year in which the search wasconducted and also the period of currentprevious year up to the date of search, but,before adoption of uniform previous year, incase of different assessees, “block period”would be different depending on the accountingperiod adopted in terms of section 3 of theAct. To obviate this situation the definitionof block period was amended. This becomesclear from Circular No. 762, dated February18, 1998 ([1998] 230 ITR (St.) 12), issued bythe Central Board of Direct Taxes extractedhereinbefore.32. As already noticed hereinbefore, theentire scheme under Chapter XIV of the Act,more particularly from Sections 147 to 153 ofthe Act pertaining to reassessment, and thespecialprocedureforassessingtheundisclosed income of the block period underChapter XIV-B of the Act are not only separateand distinct from each other, but if an effortis made to incorporate the scheme underChapter XIV of the Act for the purpose ofassessment of the block period there is aconflict between the provisions which becomesapparent on a plain reading. In thecircumstances, as per the established rules ofinterpretation, unless and until a plainreading of the two streams of assessmentprocedure does not result in the proceduresbeing independently workable, only then thequestion of resolving the conflict wouldarise. But to the contrary, in the presentcase, in the light of the provisions ofsection 158BH of the Act, once there is aconflict between the two streams of procedure,as laid down by the apex court, the provisionsof Chapter XIV-B of the Act shall prevail andhave primacy.33. Thus, viewed from any angle, thestand of the Revenue does not meritacceptance. Once assessment has been framedunder section 158BA of the Act in relation to undisclosed income for the block period as aresult of search there is no question of theAssessing Officer issuing notice under section148 of the Act for reopening such assessmentas the said concept is abhorrent to thespecial scheme of assessment of undisclosedincome for block period. At the cost ofrepetition it is required to be stated andemphasised that the first proviso undersection 158BC(a) of the Act specificallyprovides that no notice under section 148 ofthe Act is required to be issued for thepurpose of proceeding under Chapter XIV-B ofthe Act.” 23. The learned for the writ petitioner is of anopinion that the Gujarat High Court considered the similar issuewith reference to the block period as well as the reopening ofthe assessment and arrived a conclusion that parallelproceedings are impermissible and therefore, the same ratiowould apply to the facts and circumstances of the present writpetitions also. 24. In yet another case of South Asian Enterprises Ltdand Another vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and Another [(2017)99 CCH 0029 DelHC], wherein the High Court of Delhi in paragraph25 held as under:-“25. In the facts and circumstances ofthe present case, the Court is satisfiedthat reopening of the assessment for AYs1994-95 to 1996-97 by the impugned noticesdated 31st May 2001 under Section 148 of theAct during the pendency of the blockassessment proceeding was impermissible inlaw. Having initiated the proceedingunder Section158BC fortheblockassessment, there was no justification toissuetheaforementionednoticeunder Section 147 of the Act as that wouldundoubtedly result in parallel proceedings.They are based on the same materials whichform subject matter of the block assessment.The impugned notices dated 31st May 2001 arehereby quashed.” 25. The learned counsel for the writ petitioneremphasized that the High Court of Delhi reiterated the principlethat during the pendency of the block assessment proceeding, thereopening of the assessment under Section 148 of the Income TaxAct is impermissible and therefore, the very notice issued and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ impugned in the present writ petitions are to be quashed. 26. To counter, the learned Senior Standing Counselfor the Income Tax Department said that the facts andcircumstances of those cases may be different and this Court hasto consider the facts and circumstances of the present writpetitions. With reference to Section 158-BC and Section 148 ofthe Act, the Supreme Court has decided that such proceedings arepermissible and parallel proceedings can be done with referenceto the undisclosed income and based on the new materialsavailable on record are found during the search operations. 27. In the present cases on hand, the block assessmentwas taken for ten years. However, the reopening of theassessment is made only with reference to the assessment years1995-1996 and 1996-1997. Therefore, all these factual detailsare to be scrutinised by the Authorities Competent and it ispremature for this Court to go into such details in the presentwrit petitions as these writ petitions are filed challenging thevery notice issued by the Competent Authorities under Section148 of the Act and certain factual details are to be arrivedonly after the scrutiny of all the documents. It is admittedthat the search operations were made in the premises of the writpetitioner. Number of materials were seized. The books ofaccounts and the materials seized are now under the custody ofthe Income Tax Department. 28. This Court is of an opinion that the materialscollected may be by way of statements from various persons andthe documents from other resources. Search operation is of suchone where the Competent Authorities are bound to getinformations from all the sources irrespective of theirposition, status or otherwise. The very purpose of searchoperations are to ensure that the Law Enforcing Agency identifyall irregular activities which are all undisclosed or blackmoney or otherwise in violation of the Act. 29. The power of search operations are provided underthe Act for the authorities to prevent the evasion of income andpayment of tax by the citizen in general. Therefore, therecannot be any doubt in respect of conducting of searchoperations and obtaining informations from persons concerned.These informations or statements obtained by these persons canbe correlated with any other documents or with any otherDepartment or with any other Agencies. Therefore, this Courtcannot restrict the powers of the authorities to conduct searchoperations and such search operations are to be conducted onlyby following the procedures contemplated under the Statute andnot otherwise. The Competent Authorities are the best persons toconduct search operations in a logical manner and in an intelligent way to identify all such violations under theprovisions of the Act. Thus, search operating officials aretrained for that purpose and this Court cannot invade into thepowers of such authorities under the Act in respect ofconducting search operations. intelligent way to identify all such violations under theprovisions of the Act. Thus, search operating officials aretrained for that purpose and this Court cannot invade into thepowers of such authorities under the Act in respect ofconducting search operations. 30. The sources found by these authorities cannot bequestioned by the assessee under the provisions of the IncomeTax Act. Thus, the only mandatory provision is to ensure thatadequate opportunities are provided to the assessee to put forthhis defence before the Competent Authorities under the Act. ThisCourt in a writ jurisdiction also must ensure that suchopportunities contemplated under the Act are provided to theauthorities, while undertaking the process of actions under theAct. Thus, under these circumstances, this Court cannotappreciate or accept the factual contentions raised by the writpetitioner on merits. The writ petitions are filed challengingthe notices and therefore, all the facts on merits to be placedbefore the Competent Authorities by the writ petitioner byproducing evidences, documents or by way of statements. 31. Contrarily, this Court cannot appreciate thecontention raised on behalf of the writ petitioner that theparallel proceedings are impermissible. In respect of parallelproceedings, the legal principles are that if any prejudice iscaused to the person concerned then, parallel proceedings neednot be permitted. Secondly, if there is any express bar for suchparallel proceedings under the Statute, then also the parallelproceedings can be stalled. In all circumstances, the concept ofparallel proceedings shall be accepted and in large number ofStatutes such parallel proceedings are permitted enabling theauthorities to initiate actions under various law. For instance,the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, contemplates anenquiry under Section 81 of the Act. If a statutory enquiry isconducted under Section 81 of the Act, with reference to theirregularities in any Co-operative Society, then an enquiry canbe ordered and a report can be submitted by the Enquiry Officer.Such an enquiry report may result into three fold actionsagainst the erring persons. Based on the enquiry report, acriminal prosecution can be initiated by filing a complaintbefore the Commercial Crime Investigation Wing and disciplinaryproceedings can be initiated against the employees of theDepartment and the surcharge proceedings can be initiated torecover the loss if any occurred to the Institution. Thus, therecannot be any absolute prohibition of parallel proceedings underlaw. This Court has to examine, when such parallel proceedingsare permissible and impermissible with reference to the Statutesand with reference to the facts and circumstances of each case. 32. The concept of parallel proceedings even indepartmental proceedings are permitted by the Apex Court of India. In respect of Government employees, both the departmentalproceedings and the criminal prosecutions are permissible. Thus,this Court is unable to appreciate the general contention raisedby the writ petitioner that parallel proceedings areimpermissible. Tax Act. 33. Let us now look into the provisions of the Income 34. The block assessment is undertaken with referenceto Section 132-A of the Income Tax Act. Now block assessmentproceedings are initiated and actions under Section 158-BC arecommenced. Pursuant to the block assessment made, based on theinformations received on account of search operations, thereopening of the assessment is also simultaneously done withreference to the assessment years 1995-1996 and 1996-1997 alone.Thus, the reopening of the assessment is initiated based onother reasons. Tax Act. 33. Let us now look into the provisions of the Income 34. The block assessment is undertaken with referenceto Section 132-A of the Income Tax Act. Now block assessmentproceedings are initiated and actions under Section 158-BC arecommenced. Pursuant to the block assessment made, based on theinformations received on account of search operations, thereopening of the assessment is also simultaneously done withreference to the assessment years 1995-1996 and 1996-1997 alone.Thus, the reopening of the assessment is initiated based onother reasons. 35. The learned Senior Standing Counsel also clarifiedthat reopening of the assessment is taken with reference to twoassessment years based on the materials available with theAssessment Officer. The notice issued under Section 148 of theAct itself stipulates that the Department has receivedinformation that the writ petitioner has made an investment ofRs.45,71,26,016/- from U.K. Companies and also incurred expensesduring the year ended 31.3.1995. But the writ petitioner has notadmitted any income accrued or received based on the investmentduring the previous year ended 31.3.1996 relating to theassessment year 1996-1997. 36. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for theDepartment also clarifies that these informations or materialsare independent and unconnected with the block assessment madewith reference to Section 158-BC for ten years. Thus, when theAssessing Officer has got reason to believe under Section 147 ofthe Act, then they are empowered to issue notice under Section148 of the Act and deal with the case under Sections 147 to 153of the Act and by following the procedures contemplated underthe provisions of the Act. 37. When the Income Tax Department come out with aplea that the reopening of the assessment is made based on theindependent informations and the documents available, it is leftopen to the assessee to seek the reasons from the Department,which was already given to the writ petitioner and accordingly,submit his defence to the reasons stated and allow the Assessingofficer to assess the income and pass final orders of assessmentunder the Act. 38. In the present cases on hand, the reasons forreopening of the assessment had already been provided to thewrit petitioner. Thus, the writ petitioner ought to have givenhis explanations/objections in respect of the reasons stipulatedin the reply by the Income Tax Department. Contrarily, if thisCourt adjudicate the merits and demerits, the same would causeprejudice to the Income Tax Department in concluding thereassessment proceedings with reference to Sections 147 to 153of the Act. 39. The very object and purpose of the reassessmentand reopening of the assessment is to ensure that the taxevaders are dealt in accordance with law. If the assessee failedto disclose the actual income to the Department in a parallelassessment year, the Assessing Officer is empowered to reopenthe assessment with reference to Sections 147 to 153 of the Act.Once the proceedings are commenced under Section 148 of the Act,then this Court must allow the Assessing Officer to adjudicatethe reassessment and arrive a conclusion and pass assessmentorders by affording opportunities to the assessee and byfollowing the procedures. This being the concept and the objectsought to be achieved under the provisions of the Act and byquashing the very notice, the very purpose of the proceedingswould be defeated. 40. Even in the case of Dayanidhi Maran vs. AssistantCommissioner of Income Tax, Non-Corporate Circle-1, Chennai[(2018 98 taxmann.com 202 (Madras)], this Court had reiteratedthe principles that no writ petition can be entertained againstthe notice in a routine manner. Judicial review against suchstatutory notices are limited and the aggrieved persons are atliberty to submit their explanations/objections with referenceto the reasons stated in the impugned notice and participate inthe proceedings so as to reach a logical conclusion. Inparagraph 100 of the abovesaid judgment, this Court made thefollowing observations, which is extracted hereunder:-“100. In the present writ petitions,this Court is of an opinion that undoubtedlynotice was issued based on the reasonsrecorded by the Assessing Officer underSection 147 of the Act. However, the reasonsarrived had not been communicated to the writpetitioner. But the writ petitioner requestedthe reasons to be furnished. Responding tothe letter sent by the writ petitioner, theAssessing Officer communicated the reasons tothe Assessee/writ petitioner and theobjections were rejected. Thus, the writpetitioner has not been prejudiced in respectof the proceedings communicated by the Assessing Officer. Thus, this Court, has toconsider the very fact that, whether anyprejudice has been caused to the Assesseeresulting any injustice or otherwise in thepresent writ petitions on hand. The writpetitioner very well can respond to theAssessing Officer and establish his genuinityor otherwise by producing the materialsavailable with him and by providinginformations known to him. Without doing so,the writ petitioner filed the present writpetitions, challenging the notice.” 41. The constructive interpretation of theseprovisions are certainly imminent. Constructive interpretationand the pragmatic approach to reach the object of the Statute isalso a mandate of the Constitution. Any legislation has got adefinite purpose and object so also the Income Tax Act. Theprovisions of the Income Tax Act had to be interpretedconstructively so as to understand the purpose and the object. 42. In the present cases on hand, admittedly there wassearch operations. Admittedly, certain materials were secured bythe Authorities Competent. Admittedly, in its order dated15.11.1996, the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax providedopportunity to the writ petitioner to inspect all thosedocuments. However, opportunities proposed to be provided wasinformed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. 43. However, now the learned Senior Standing Counselfor the Income Tax Department made a submission that anopportunity will be provided to the writ petitioner by followingthe procedures. This being the submission made, this Court is ofan opinion that complete opportunity as contemplated under theAct must be provided to the assessee, enabling him to submit hisexplanations/objections and the documents if any along with thestatements for the purpose of concluding the proceedings in allrespects and to ensure that the proceedings reaches its logicalconclusion. 44. In this view of the matter, this Court is of anopinion that WP Nos.1143 and 1144 of 2003 as well as the WPNo.7623 of 2002 are devoid of merits and stands dismissed andthis Court hope that the writ petitioner would cooperate for theearly completion of all the proceedings and the Departmentinitiate steps to conclude all these proceedings by providingopportunity to the writ petitioner as contemplated under the Actwithout any further lapse of time and this observation is madeconsciously that the writ petitions are filed in the year 2002and 2003 respectively and decided in the year 2018 by the HighCourt and such an unfortunate situation shall also to be averted in future in all such cases where the income and financialinterests of our great Nation are involved. 44. In this view of the matter, this Court is of anopinion that WP Nos.1143 and 1144 of 2003 as well as the WPNo.7623 of 2002 are devoid of merits and stands dismissed andthis Court hope that the writ petitioner would cooperate for theearly completion of all the proceedings and the Departmentinitiate steps to conclude all these proceedings by providingopportunity to the writ petitioner as contemplated under the Actwithout any further lapse of time and this observation is madeconsciously that the writ petitions are filed in the year 2002and 2003 respectively and decided in the year 2018 by the HighCourt and such an unfortunate situation shall also to be averted in future in all such cases where the income and financialinterests of our great Nation are involved. 45. Accordingly, all the writ petitions standdismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Sd/-Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Svn Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle II (2), Chennai-600 034. 2.Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle II (5), Chennai-600 034. 3.Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Tamil Nadu, Chennai-600 034. 4.The Deputy Commissioner, Central Circle I, 108 Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai-600 034. 5.The Assistant Commissioner, Central Circle II (2), 108 Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai-600 034. 6.The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range II, 108 Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai-600 034. +2cc to Mr.S.Sridhar, Advocate, S.R.No. 87093, 87094+2cc to Mr.A.P.Srinivas, Advocate, S.R.No.86997, 86998 WP Nos.7623 of 2002 and 1143 and 1144 of 2003 GJII(CO)GN(08/01/2019) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/