Wp/35319/2019 Of 6Th Sense Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd v. The Principal Director Of Income Tax (Circle 2)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS CORAM: THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH W.P. No.35319 of 2019 and WMP.Nos.36129 & 36130 of 2019 6[th] Sense Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.,Rep. by its Director N.Nandakumar No. 6 Dr.TV Naidu Road Chetpet Chennai 600031. .. Petitioner 1. The Principal Director of Income Tax (Circle 2) New No. 46 Old No. 108 Nungambakkam High Road Chennai 600034. 2. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle - 2(3) Room No.126, Investigation Building 46 Mahatma Gandhi Road Nungambakkam Chennai – 600034. 3. The Deputy Director of Income Tax (INV) Unit 4(1) Investigation Wing (Room No. 115 1[st] Floor) New No. 46, Old No. 108 Nungambakkam High Road Chennai 600034. .. Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India praying to Writ of Certiorari to callfor the records of the 2[nd] Respondent culminating in theimpugned notice PAN. / 2019-20 dated 29.10.2019 readwith the notice bearing No. ITBA/ AST/ S/ 153C/ 2019-20/1018477224(1) dated 30.09.2019 issued by the 2[nd] Respondentunder section 153 C of the Act for AY 2017-19 and quash thesame.For Petitioner : Mrs.L.MaithiliFor Respondents : Mr.A.P.Srinivas Senior Standing CounselO R D E R The petitioner in this Writ Petition is a limited companyincorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956with the object of running a business in the field of SoftwareDevelopment, Knowledge Process Outsourcing (KPO), Technicalhttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/Education and Development of Real Estate and other objects in conjunction with IT/ITES businesses. It had applied to theState Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu (SIPCOT)for allotment of a plot of land in an Information TechnologyPark set up by SIPCOT at Siruseri for setting up of a softwaredevelopment and KPO unit. It was allotted a propertyadmeasuring 11.12 acres under a 99 year deed of lease dated11.05.2005. 2. The setting up of the unit was delayed and extensionof time was sought for by the petitioner from time to time inregard to the deployment of the property for its business.However, according to the petitioner, despite its bestefforts, the petitioner was unable to commercially exploit thepremises even after a decade from its allotment. 3. In 2016, a group of shareholders of the petitionercompany belonging to the family of Dinesh Chand Surana(‘individual’), who wished to exit the business had offeredtheir shares to the remaining shareholders. Since theshareholders were not willing to increase their share-holding,the said individual undertook to find buyers for the company,such that all existing shareholders could exit. 4. On 01.10.2016, a Board resolution was passed recordingthe position that the existing shareholders resolved to exitthe company and the aforesaid individual was authorised toidentify a purchaser and engage in all actions for thispurpose. According to the petitioner, the individual was notauthorised to receive any consideration towards the aforesaidarrangement, either in part or in full and his mandateextended only to the extent of him identifying a purchaser.Thereafter matters were to be left with the Board and SIPCOTto take forward in a proper manner. 5. In pursuance of the above arrangement, the individualis said to have been entrusted with the temporary custody ofall original documents including the lease deed with SIPCOT,share certificates and other documents that a prospectivepurchaser may seek for the purpose of conducting duediligence. A draft Memorandum of Undertaking (MOU) dated22.11.2016 is also said to have been prepared by theindividual duly executed by all Directors which was blank inregard to the details of the anticipated purchaser who wasbeing identified by the individual. 5. In pursuance of the above arrangement, the individualis said to have been entrusted with the temporary custody ofall original documents including the lease deed with SIPCOT,share certificates and other documents that a prospectivepurchaser may seek for the purpose of conducting duediligence. A draft Memorandum of Undertaking (MOU) dated22.11.2016 is also said to have been prepared by theindividual duly executed by all Directors which was blank inregard to the details of the anticipated purchaser who wasbeing identified by the individual. 6. While this is so, the Director of the petitionercompany who has deposed to the affidavit filed in support ofthis Writ Petition received summons under Section 131 of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) calling upon him toappear before the Additional Deputy Director of Income Tax andit was only when the deponent appeared that, according to him,he came to know of a search carried out in the premises of ahttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/third party, ostensibly unconnected with this petitioner, from whom the documents entrusted to the individual had beenseized. 7. These documents constitute (i) original lease deedbetween SIPCOT and the petitioner company dated 11.05.2005(ii) allotment letter dated 16.02.2004 issued by SIPCOT infavour of the company (iii) letter of handing over ofpossession dated 02.08.2005 executed by SIPCOT in favour ofthe petitioner company (iv) original share certificates issuedby the petitioner in favour of its shareholders and (v)undated incomplete MOU duly executed by all Directors of thepetitioner company. 8. In the course of proceedings before the Income TaxDepartment, the petitioner explained that it had nothingwhatsoever to do with the third party who had been searched.The entire narration of how the documents had come to beentrusted to the individual and were found in his possession,had also been explained. Certain documents and details werecalled for from the petitioner that, the petitioner stateswere handed over. The enquiry did not proceed thereafter. 9. A warrant of provisional attachment came to be issuedunder Section 132(9B) attaching the land and building atS.No.76 Egatoor Village, Kanchipuram District of an extent of11.12 acres (property/property in question). Despite thepetitioner having objected to the same, there was neither anyresponse nor action taken by the respondents to lift theattachment, and hence W.P.No.14023 of 2019 came to be filedbefore this Court seeking a quash of the provisionalattachment order. 10. In that Writ Petition, a counter had been filed dated19.06.2019 wherein the Additional Deputy Director of IncomeTax (Inv.) (R3 in that Writ Petition) had stated that theseized documents could not be returned since the file was tobe handed over to the appropriate Assessing Authority forassessment proceedings to be initiated as against thepetitioner. The counter went on to state that the WritPetition was itself infructuous, since the provisionalattachment had ceased to have effect after the expiry of sixmonths from the date of attachment as per Statute. 11. The counter confirmed the position that as on thatdate, proceedings had yet to be initiated and that a noticeunder Section 153A or 153C as appropriate, was in the offing.Pending Writ Petition, a notice under Section 153C wasreceived by the petitioner calling for returns for AssessmentYear (AY) 2017. The notice was dated 14.06.2019 and called fora return on or before 08.07.2019. The petitioner, whilepointing out that the time granted was short, in any event,called attention to its earlier return filed on 27.10.2017https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/declaring a loss, and which had been accepted by the Central 11. The counter confirmed the position that as on thatdate, proceedings had yet to be initiated and that a noticeunder Section 153A or 153C as appropriate, was in the offing.Pending Writ Petition, a notice under Section 153C wasreceived by the petitioner calling for returns for AssessmentYear (AY) 2017. The notice was dated 14.06.2019 and called fora return on or before 08.07.2019. The petitioner, whilepointing out that the time granted was short, in any event,called attention to its earlier return filed on 27.10.2017https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/declaring a loss, and which had been accepted by the Central Processing Centre (CPC) at Bangalore on 01.03.2018. Itrequested that the return filed earlier be treated as thereturn of income to be filed in compliance of the notice underSection 153C. 12. The petitioner also requested that the satisfactionnote be furnished to the petitioner along withapproval/sanction for issuance of the Section 153C notice,notification for transfer of the petitioner’s case to theCentral Circle, statements recorded, copies of the documentsclaimed to have been seized from the party, appraisal reportand other relevant documents. 13. Since there was no response to the aforesaid request,the petitioner impleaded the Assistant Commissioner of IncomeTax, Central Circle (R2 in this Writ petition) as arespondent, R5, in W.P.No.14023 of 2019. R5 filed anadditional counter dated 23.08.2019 stating that the timelimit for completion of assessment in the V.K.Sasikala groupof cases (the entity subject to search under Section 132 ofthe Act) was till 31.12.2019 and the proper course of actionwould be for the Assessing Officer (AO) to evaluate theavailable materials and complete the proceedings forassessment. 14. That Writ Petition was disposed on 13.09.2019 holdingthat the attachment had lapsed by elapse of time. The Courtalso held that the petitioner was not entitled for the returnof seized documents and that the AO would proceed with theassessment in accordance with law. 15. On 30.09.2019 Section 153C notices were received forAYs 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2015-16, 2016-17 and2017-18, in response to which, the petitioner, by letter dated09.10.2019, stated that the returns filed earlier for theaforesaid years were being re-submitted for compliance withthe present notices. On 29.10.2019, a show cause notice cameto be issued by R2 pointing out to the recovery of certainallegedly incriminating evidence from Krishnapriya, niece ofV.K.Sasikala, indicating a cash payment made to the individualtotalling Rs.86 crores, in the name of the petitioner company.The petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why theaforesaid amount not be treated as income from other sourcesin its hands. Various documents were called for. 16. The petitioner reiterated its earlier request formaterials said to have been found in the search and suchmaterials as well as some of the statements recorded in thecourse of search were furnished to it. R2, on 02.12.2019issued an order of provisional attachment under Section 281B.It is at that juncture that the present Writ Petition has cometo be filed, on 18.12.2019, wherein the petitioner prays for ahttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Writ of Certiorari quashing notices issued under Section 153Cdated 30.09.2019 and show cause notice dated 29.10.2019. 17. According to the petitioner, the proceedingsinitiated under the impugned notices are without jurisdiction,since there is no income escaping assessment, which a pre-condition for the initiation of the proceedings themselves.The petitioner would urge that the seized documents do notincriminate it in any way and hence the respondents ought notto have commenced the present proceedings based on thosedocuments. Writ of Certiorari quashing notices issued under Section 153Cdated 30.09.2019 and show cause notice dated 29.10.2019. 17. According to the petitioner, the proceedingsinitiated under the impugned notices are without jurisdiction,since there is no income escaping assessment, which a pre-condition for the initiation of the proceedings themselves.The petitioner would urge that the seized documents do notincriminate it in any way and hence the respondents ought notto have commenced the present proceedings based on thosedocuments. 18. Though reference is made to the factual aspects ofthe matter, i.e., the details of the materials seized, and thecircumstances in which the documents came to be in thepossession of the individual and thereafter in the possessionof the person searched, I consciously desist from referring toeither the details of the documents or the narration in regardto the transaction itself and restrict myself to the legalissues raised. 19. The petitioner would stress on the position that theindividual had been prohibited from receiving any amounttowards the sale of the company and the company thus disavowsall relationship with such amounts. If at all such amount hadbeen received by the individual, the same is not liable to beassessed in the petitioner’s hands. 20. The individual, apart from being a shareholder of thecompany, carries on multiple businesses and the amounts saidto be seized could well relate to any of his businesstransactions. To state that the petitioner should be subjectedto assessment simply on this basis is thus wholly incorrectand improper, according to the petitioner. 21. In counter the respondents have set out their versionof the transaction between the petitioner and the individualhighlighting the aspect of escapement of income. According tothe respondents, the search initiated in the case of Suranagroup of companies and connected assesses revealed documentsrelating to the petitioner leading to a prima facie conclusionthat cash had been received by the individual on behalf of thecompany for sale of the company. 22. The counter refers to the sworn statements recordedfrom both factions, ie., the faction that has filed thepresent Writ Petition as well as other Directors of thecompany, in support of the prima facie contention that thereis escapement of income which has to be examined further bythe AO in the course of assessment proceedings. I refrain fromcommitting to any of the factual details mentioned therein asthey pertain to on-going proceedings, and in the light of thehttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/conclusion I have arrived at in the paragraphs to follow. 23. Having heard learned counsels, I am not in agreementwith the petitioner on this issue. The question of escapementof income from assessment or otherwise is a matter ofdeduction and determination by the assessing officer based onall relevant materials and explanations of the partiesconcerned. The explanation and justification offered now bythe petitioner in regard to the documents found in thepremises searched, is one that would have to be considered bythe officer to determine whether is any undisclosed income tobe brought to tax and the proper person/entity in whose handsit must be brought to tax. 24. This is not an issue that can be looked into in awrit petition as it involves determination of disputed facts.The challenge to assumption of jurisdiction by the assessingofficer would have to be seen in the context of whether therehas been escapement of income. The two issues are thus closelyinterlinked and one cannot decide the question of jurisdictionwithout rendering a finding on the aspect of escapement ofincome. I thus decline to interfere in the challenge toassumption of jurisdiction, on this score. 24. This is not an issue that can be looked into in awrit petition as it involves determination of disputed facts.The challenge to assumption of jurisdiction by the assessingofficer would have to be seen in the context of whether therehas been escapement of income. The two issues are thus closelyinterlinked and one cannot decide the question of jurisdictionwithout rendering a finding on the aspect of escapement ofincome. I thus decline to interfere in the challenge toassumption of jurisdiction, on this score. 25. The petitioner would also state that no satisfactionnote, as contemplated under Section 153C has been furnished,despite a specific request. This is a pre-condition for theinitiation of proceedings under Section 153 C in the absenceof which the entire proceedings stand vitiated. The counterfiled by the respondents in the earlier writ petition hadinitially stated that a notice under Section 153A/C was in theoffing. Thereafter, and pending Writ Petition, a notice dated14.06.2019 was received by the petitioner. 26. Mr.Srinivas was directed to produce the satisfactionnote and had, at the time of admission on 20.12.2019 producedan undated document stating that the same was the satisfactionnote of the IO. Counter dated 03.03.2020 also makes referenceto the satisfaction note handed over to the petitioner on20.12.2019 (last line of paragraph 6 of the counter). 27. A rejoinder has been filed wherein the petitionerobjects to the satisfaction note stated to have been given toit on the ground that it does not reveal any material orreasoning to justify the initiation of proceedings against thepetitioner. The petitioner points out that the satisfactionnote that was handed over to the petitioner when the matterhad come up for admission on 20.12.2019 was undated, does notrefer to any file number and was, to top it all, unsigned.These allegations are factually correct. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 28. However, Mr.Srinivas has thereafter filed acompilation of documents wherein the recording of satisfactionin the case of M.Sasikala on 27.08.2019 is placed at document1, satisfaction note relating to the petitioner dated30.09.2019 is placed at page 7 and a satisfaction note in thecase of Surana Corporation Limited, also dated 30.09.2019, isplaced at page 12. These documents filed in typed set dated24.09.2020 are complete and have been certified to be truecopies of the originals. 29. Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, allthat the Court is required to look into is whethersatisfactionhasbeenrecordedandthe justification/sufficiency for such satisfaction is hardly amatter that the Court would concern itself with. Thesatisfaction notes recorded in both cases are extracted below: ‘Proforma for recording satisfaction under section 153C(To be filled by the Assessing Officer of the personreferred to section 153A) 1.Name of the Group searchedSmt. N.Sasikala2.Name and PAN of the personSmt. Sasikalareferred to in section(PAN: )153A3Date of initiation of09.11.2017search in the case of theperson referred to insection 153A4Name, address and PAN No.M/s.6[th]Senseof the person whose caseInfrastructure Privateaction under section 153CLimitedis proposed(PAN: ) justification/sufficiency for such satisfaction is hardly amatter that the Court would concern itself with. Thesatisfaction notes recorded in both cases are extracted below: ‘Proforma for recording satisfaction under section 153C(To be filled by the Assessing Officer of the personreferred to section 153A) 1.Name of the Group searchedSmt. N.Sasikala2.Name and PAN of the personSmt. Sasikalareferred to in section(PAN: )153A3Date of initiation of09.11.2017search in the case of theperson referred to insection 153A4Name, address and PAN No.M/s.6[th]Senseof the person whose caseInfrastructure Privateaction under section 153CLimitedis proposed(PAN: ) 7SatisfactionoftheI am satisfied for theAssessing Officer of thedetailed reason as perperson referred to inthe annexure that thesection 153A that theincriminatingseized material referreddocuments/loose sheetsto in S.No.5 with theSeized vide annexureperson referred to inANN/KGA/VKS/LS/S-2&S.No.4ANN/MS/KK/LS/Swhichcontain Original Sharecertificates,incorporationcertificates of M/s.6[th]SenseinfrastructurePvt Ltd and MoU for thesale of assets andsharespertainstoM/s.6[th]SenseinfrastructurePvt.Ltd. 8Assessment Years involvedA.Y.2017-18. Note:1. Copy of relevant Panchnama may be sent at the time ofhanding over of the relevant seized material2. For the purposes of this proforma, seized materialincludes material requisitioned under-section 132A Name and Designation of the A.O: (Sd/-) XXXXDate : 27.08.2019 (G.Ajay Robin Singh)Place: Chennai Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 2(2), Chennai. Annexure.............. Further During the course of search proceedings atRoom No.302, Shylee Niwas Service apartment, NutechLushington, old no.41, new no.76, block II, 1[st] Main Road,CIT Nagar, Nandanam, Chennai, various incriminatingdocuments in the form of Memorandum of understandings(MOUs) and share certificates evidencing the sale ofvarious assets of prominent business groups across TamilNadu as elaborated in Para was found. On perusal of theincriminating materials seized it is found that thefollowingdocumentsrelatedtoM/s.6[th]Senseinfrastructure Pvt Ltd. was found and seized videANN/KGV/LS/S2.PageDetailsNo.1-10Financials of M/s.6[th] Sense Infrastructure Pvt Ltdfor AY 2016-1711-21Financials of M/s.6[th] Sense Infrastructure Pvt Ltdhttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/for AY 2015-16 22-33Copy of Memorandum of M/s.6[th] Sense InfrastructurePvt Ltd. 34-45Copy of Article of Association of M/s.6[th] SenseInfrastructure Pvt Ltd46-59Lease Deed between SIPCOT and M/s.6[th] senseInfrastructure Pvt Ltd. on 11 May 2005.60-69Order of allotment of plot in SIPCOT for M/s.6[th]Sense Infrastructure Pvt Ltd.70-95Original Lease Deed between SIPCOT and M/s.6[th]Sense Infrastructure Pvt Ltd. 11 May 200596Incorporation certificate of M/s.6[th]SenseInfrastructure Pvt Ltd97-102Memorandum of Understanding for sale of equityshares of M/s.6[th] Sense Infrastructure Pvt Ltd.for Rs.16 Crs. Singed by Lalit Mehta Mr.A.NandaKumar and Dinesh Chand Surana.103-Original Share Certificates of M/s.6[th] Sense195Infrastructure Pvt Ltd* In view of the seizure of these highly incriminatingmaterials, Shri.Senthil was summoned once again andconfronted with the seized materials. During the courseof the enquiry he confirmed the seized MoUs were the oneswhich were executed by Smt. Sasikala with the vendors.The relevant portion of sworn statement Shri.Senthildated 11.11.2017 is reproduced below:-.........Satisfaction Note u/s.153C......... Consequently the Assessing Officer of Sasikala Groupafter recording satisfaction in the capacity of AssessingOfficer of the searched party handed over the seizedmaterials on 27.08.2019 to this office i.e. ACIT, CentralCircle 2 (3), Chennai which is having jurisdiction overthe case of M/s.Surana Corporation Ltd and M/s.6[th] SenseInfrastructure Pvt Ltd as well. In view of the seizure of these highly incriminatingmaterials, Shri.Senthil was summoned once again andconfronted with the seized materials. During the courseof the enquiry he confirmed the seized MoUs were the oneswhich were executed by Smt. Sasikala with the vendors.The relevant portion of sworn statement Shri.Senthildated 11.11.2017 is reproduced below:-.........Satisfaction Note u/s.153C......... Consequently the Assessing Officer of Sasikala Groupafter recording satisfaction in the capacity of AssessingOfficer of the searched party handed over the seizedmaterials on 27.08.2019 to this office i.e. ACIT, CentralCircle 2 (3), Chennai which is having jurisdiction overthe case of M/s.Surana Corporation Ltd and M/s.6[th] SenseInfrastructure Pvt Ltd as well. ........On a complete perusal and analysis of seizedmaterials together with the corroborative sworn statementrecorded during the course of search I am satisfied thatthe incriminating materials seized vide annexureANN/KGA/VKS/LS/S-2 and ANN/MS/KK/LS/S which pertains toM/s.6[th] Sense Infrastructe Pvt Ltd have a bearing on thedetermination of total income of M/s.6[th]SenseInfrastructure Pvt Ltd for the financial year 2016-17relevant to assessment year 2017-18. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Accordingly notice to be issued as per theprovisions of section 153C IT At for AY 2012-13 to 2018-19. Date: 30.09.2019 Sd/-. XXXXXXXH.Mahendran, IRSACIT, Central Circle 2(3), Chennai.******* ‘Proforma for recording satisfaction under section 153C(To be filled by the Assessing Officer of the personreferred to section 153A)1.Name of the Group searchedM/s.SuranaCorporationLimited2.Name and PAN of the personM/s.SuranaCorporationreferred to in sectionLimited153A(PAN:AAACS31221)3Date of initiation of09.11.2017search in the case of theperson referred to insection 153A4Name, address and PAN No.M/s.6[th]Senseof the person whose caseInfrastructurePrivateaction under section 153CLimitedis proposed(PAN: ) 7SatisfactionoftheI am satisfied that theAssessing Officer of theincriminatingperson referred to indocuments/loosesheetssection 153A that theSeizedvideannexureseized material referredANN/KGA/VKS/LS/S-2&to in S.No.5 with theANN/MS/KK/LS/Scontainperson referred to in(1)OriginalShareS.No.4certificates, Mou and (2)the details of moneyreceipts towards sale ofthe property to the tuneof Rs.86 crores but notentered into its regularbooks of accounts for theA.Y.2012-13 to 2018-19.Hence, I am satisfiedthat the above mentionedseized materials have abearingonthedeterminationofthetotal income of theassesseefortheA.Y.2012-13 to 2018-19. 8Assessment Years involvedA.Y.2012-13 to 2018-19 Name and Designation of the A.O: (Sd/-) XXXXDate : 30.09.2019 (H.MAHENDRAN)Place: Chennai Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 2(3), Chennai. 30. The petitioner has referred to the judgment of theSupreme Court in the case of Manisha Maheswari V. AssistantCommissioner of Income Tax and another (289 ITR 341) whereinthe Supreme Court had reiterated the necessity for recordingof satisfaction prior to transfer of files by theInvestigating Officer to the AO having jurisdiction over anassessee. In the present case, the recording of satisfactionprior to issuance to notice dated 30.09.2019 is apparent fromthe record and the argument of the petitioner to the contraryis rejected. 31. Further, in the light of the confirmation furnishednow to the effect that the satisfaction had been issued by theIO only on 30.09.2019, notice dated 14.06.2019 was evidentlybad in law. According to the petitioner, this fact vitiatesall other and subsequent proceedings including the impugnednotice dated 30.09.2019. 31. Further, in the light of the confirmation furnishednow to the effect that the satisfaction had been issued by theIO only on 30.09.2019, notice dated 14.06.2019 was evidentlybad in law. According to the petitioner, this fact vitiatesall other and subsequent proceedings including the impugnednotice dated 30.09.2019. 32. The satisfaction notes now placed on record make itclear that as in June, 2019, there had been no recording ofsatisfaction by the IO and thus the issuance of notice underSection 153C on 14.06.2019 was erroneous since it was withoutsatisfaction of the condition precedent. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 33. In fact, notice dated 14.06.2019 which has beenplaced in the typed set filed by petitioner at page 74 hascaught Mr.Srinivas by surprise and it was only after thisargument was specifically urged by the petitioner, thatadditional counter dated 11.02.2021 has come to be filed byR2 accompanied by a typed set containing the two satisfactionnotes and note for transfer of files from IO to AO. 34. The question that looms large is as to whether theissuance of notice dated 14.06.2019 without compliance of thestatutory pre-condition, would vitiate all subsequentassessment proceedings including the impugned notice. R2, inhis reply to the petitioner’s rejoinder, reiterates that theprocedure followed by the respondents is in accordance withlaw. 35. There is no reference in any of the respondents’pleadings to notice dated 14.06.2019. The respondents thusdisavow notice dated 14.06.2019 and their case rests on theposition that satisfaction notes were drawn up on 30.09.2019and it was only parallel and pursuant thereto that theimpugned notice under Section 153C dated 30.09.2019 wasissued. In this context, attention is drawn to Sections 282and 282A of the Act as well as Rules 127 and 127A of theIncome Tax Rules, 1962 (Rules) to justify the issuance of theimpugned notice and to state that proper procedure has beenfollowed. 36. I am of the considered view that the issuance of theinvalid notice dated 14.06.2019 does not compromise theassessment proceedings as, the invalid notice is one that doesnot exist in the eyes of the law and must thus be ignored. Theprovisions of Section 282 deal with service of notice ingeneral terms and Section 282A with the authentication ofnotices for service by electronic means. In this case, it isnot in dispute that notice dated 30.09.2019 is a valid noticequa the provisions of Sections 282 and 282A read with Rules127 and 127A. The issuance of notice dated 14.06.2019 does notvitiate the impugned proceedings in any way. 37. Though the decision of the Calcutta High Court inShrikant Mohta V. Commissioner of Income Tax (414 ITR 270) isplaced as part of the compilation, it has not been referred toin the course of the arguments. An extract from the Income TaxBusiness Application Portal is also filed, perhaps to indicatethe transition of proceedings from manual to electronic mode.However, there is no challenge to the mode of proceedings inthis matter. 38. For the aforesaid reasons, the challenge to impugnednotices dated 30.09.2019 under Section 153C and show causenotice dated 29.10.2019 is rejected. Proceedings forassessment shall continue and be concluded in accordance with https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ law. This Writ Petition is dismissed and connected writmiscellaneous petitions are closed with no order as to costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(co) 38. For the aforesaid reasons, the challenge to impugnednotices dated 30.09.2019 under Section 153C and show causenotice dated 29.10.2019 is rejected. Proceedings forassessment shall continue and be concluded in accordance with https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ law. This Writ Petition is dismissed and connected writmiscellaneous petitions are closed with no order as to costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(co) //True Copy// Sub Assistant RegistrarSlTo1. The Principal Director of Income Tax (Circle 2) New No. 46 Old No. 108 Nungambakkam High Road Chennai 600034.2. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle - 2(3) Room No.126, Investigation Building 46 Mahatama Gandhi Road Nungambakkam Chennai – 600034.3. The Deputy Director of Income Tax (INV) Unit 4(1) Investigation Wing (Room No. 115 1[st] Floor) New No. 46, Old No. 108 Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai 600034.W.P. No.35319 of 2019andWMP. Nos.36129 & 36130 of 2019A.SK(29.06.2021)