Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)

1. In another set of writ petitions leading being Special Civil Application No. 434 of 2024, arguments were heard on 15.01.2024 and the matter has been kept for orders on 06.02.2024. It is pointed out by Mr. Darshan R. Patel, learned counsel for the petitioners that one writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 436 of 2024 filed by the petitioner herein, namely Shyamlal Rupchand Parwani has been tagged with the aforesaid bunch, though the facts of the said case are somewhat different from the present bunch. It was, therefore, agreed between the parties that since the order has yet not been delivered, Special Civil Application No. 436 of 2024 be also decided with this bunch. We, therefore, direct that the Special Civil Application No. 436 of 2024 be tagged with the present bunch of petitions filed by the same petitioner, namely, Shyamlal Rupchand Parwani arising out of a similar dispute.

12. We may further note that the points raised by the learned counsel for the assessee on the plea of lack of jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer in issuing notice under Section 153C of the Act, can not be appreciated by us, as it could not be demonstrated that no satisfaction note was recorded by the Assessing Officer prior to issuance of the notice under Section 153C of the Act'1961 on 09.06.2022.

13. For the aforesaid, we do not find any merit in the challenge made in the bunch of writ petitions, i.e. Special Civil Application No. 315 of 2024 filed by the petitioner, namely Shyamlal Rupchand Parwani to the notice under Section NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/315/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2024 undefined 153C of the Act'1961 dated 09.06.2022 and the notice under Section 142(1) dated 11.12.2023. However, it is kept open for the petitioner to raise all possible objections before the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings including that there was no satisfaction note of the Assessing Officer before issuance of the notice under Section 153C dated 09.06.2022 and that there was no occasion to record prima facie proof that the seized material pertains to or relates to the petitioner. The petitioner would be at liberty to raise objections that no incriminating material was found during the search carried out on 15.10.2019 of the searched person, which could have been made basis for recording satisfaction, if any, by the Assessing Officer of the petitioner. The petitioner would be free to contend that he cannot be linked to a baseless satisfaction note, which has no material foundation.