Gujarat High Court
Anees Designs Niraj Nareshbhai Soni ... vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax on 26 November, 2019
Author: Harsha Devani
Bench: Harsha Devani, Sangeeta K. Vishen
C/SCA/20849/2019 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20849 of 2019
==========================================================
ANEES DESIGNS NIRAJ NARESHBHAI SONI (PARTNER)
Versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
==========================================================
Appearance:
DARSHAN R PATEL(8486) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN
Date : 26/11/2019
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI)
1. Mr. Darshan Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner invited the attention of the court to the satisfaction note recorded by the Assessing Officer for issuing the impugned notices for assessment years 2012-13 to 2017-18, to submit that it is recorded therein that the parcels seized during the course of search contained a parcel sent by Divine City Jewellers of Delhi to the petitioner for job work. It was submitted that on the basis of the above, the Assessing Officer has recorded that he is satisfied that the gold articles seized from the search party belongs to and information in this regard relates to the petitioner who is the assessee, other than the person under section 153A of the Act. It was submitted that in the present case all that is seized is parcels containing gold. No books of account or documents have been seized. It was submitted that, therefore, reference to amended section Page 1 of 3 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 28 01:20:02 IST 2019 C/SCA/20849/2019 ORDER 153C(1)(b) by the Assessing Officer is misconceived, inasmuch as, in the absence of any books of account or document having been seized or requisitioned, there is no question of the same pertaining to or any information contained therein relating to the petitioner. It was submitted that from the satisfaction note it is evident that the gold has been sent to the petitioner for job work. It was submitted that the expression "job work" has not been defined in the Income Tax Act but has been defined under sub-section (68) of section 2 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, to mean any treatment or process undertaken by a person on goods belonging to another registered person and the expression "job worker" shall be construed accordingly. It was submitted that, therefore, from the definition of "job work" it is evident that the goods belong to another person and not the person to whom it is sent for job work. It was submitted that, therefore, the question of the seized gold belonging to the petitioner does not arise, and hence, the impugned notice under section 153C of the Act lacks validity.
2. The learned advocate made an alternative submission that in this case the search was conducted on 27.10.2017, that is, in the financial year 2017-18 relatable to assessment year 2018-19. It was submitted that, therefore, if the gold seized is incriminating material against the petitioner, the same relates to assessment year 2018-19 in respect of which proceedings of scrutiny assessment have already been initiated. It was submitted that, therefore also, the impugned notices under section 153C are not sustainable.
3. Having regard to the submissions advanced by the Page 2 of 3 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 28 01:20:02 IST 2019 C/SCA/20849/2019 ORDER learned advocate for the petitioner, Issue Notice returnable on 16th December, 2019. By way of ad-interim relief, further proceedings pursuant to the impugned notices dated 12.9.2019 issued by the respondent under section 153C of the Act for assessment years 2012-13 to 2017-18 are hereby stayed.
Direct service is permitted.
(HARSHA DEVANI, J) (SANGEETA K. VISHEN,J) Z.G. SHAIKH Page 3 of 3 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 28 01:20:02 IST 2019