Delhi High Court
Naman Madan vs Dcit Central Circle 30 Delhi & Anr. on 12 October, 2022
$~37
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 2295/2022, CM APPLs. 6591/2022, 6603/2022, 9429/2022
& 9430/2022
NAMAN MADAN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Nagesh Behl and Mr. Chetan
Manchanda, Advocates.
versus
DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 30
DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Sr. Standing
Counsel for Revenue.
% Date of Decision: 12th October, 2022
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
JUDGMENT
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J (ORAL):
CM APPL. 6591/2022
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Accordingly, this application is disposed of.
W.P.(C) 2295/2022, CM APPLs. 6603/2022, 9429/2022 & 9430/2022
1. Present petition has been filed impugning notices all dated 22nd
December, 2020, issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961,
(the 'Act') for the Assessment Years ('AY') 2011-12 to 2017-18 as void.
The petitioner also seeks a declaration that the impugned notice dated 23rd
December, 2020, under Section 143(2) of the Act for the AY 2017-18 is
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
Signing Date:18.10.2022
19:49:04
void and time barred.
2. The impugned notices have been issued pursuant to a search and
seizure operation conducted on 22nd October, 2016, under Section 132 of the
Act in the case of 'Sukhija Group'. It is stated that on 03rd October, 2017,
notices under Section 153A of the Act were issued to the petitioner's father
and mother respectively. Subsequently, on 20th June, 2020, respondent no.1
recorded satisfaction under Section 153C(1) of the Act to the effect that the
information contained in the documents and books found and seized during
the course of search on the parents relates to the petitioner herein.
Thereafter, on 22nd December, 2020, respondent no.2, the Assessing Officer
of the petitioner, issued the impugned notices under Section 153C of the Act
for the AY 2011-12 to 2017-18 and impugned notice dated 23rd December,
2020, under Section 143(2) of the Act for the AY 2017-18.
3. It is stated that the cases of the petitioner have since been transferred
from respondent no.2 to respondent no.1. It is further stated that on 21st
January, 2021, petitioner filed its Return of Income ('ROI') for AY 2011-12
to 2017-18 in response to the notices issued under 153C of the Act.
4. It is stated in the petition that the notice issued under Section 143(2)
for the AY 2017-18 is void as being time barred.
5. It is stated in the petition that the notices issued under Section 153C
of the Act are void since the same have been issued in pursuance to the
directions issued by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ['CIT(A)'] in
the course of proceedings arising from the assessments issued against the
mother of the petitioner and are therefore not based on the satisfaction of the
Assessing Officer ('AO'). It is further stated that the directions issued by the
CIT(A) was only with respect to AY 2016-17 and 2017-18, the seized
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
Signing Date:18.10.2022
19:49:04
material relates to AY 2016-17 and 2017-18 and therefore, the notices
issued for AY 2011-12 to 2015-16 are without any basis. It is also stated that
since the petitioner was a minor during AY 2011-12 to 2014-15, no notice
could have been issued for the said assessment years.
6. The present petition was listed before this Court for the first time on
07th February, 2022, and in this date the counsel for the respondent, revenue
apprised the Court that the assessment orders for AY 2011-12 to 2017-18
have been finalised. The respondent has placed on record the said
assessment orders dated 31st January, 2022, a perusal whereof shows that
for the AY 2011-12 to 2015-16 the assessment orders are 'nil'. In view of
this fact, the legal objections raised in the petition with respect to the notices
for the said assessment years being void on account of absence of directions
of the CIT(A) and the issue of minority of the petitioner do not survive for
consideration.
7. Demand has been assessed against the petitioner in the assessment
orders for AY 2016-17 and AY 2017-18 under Section 153C of the Act. The
said assessment orders are not a subject matter of the present writ petition.
The challenge to the assessment orders would necessarily require
examination of factual controversy. The petitioner has the remedy of filing
an appeal against the said assessment orders. In this respect the judgment of
Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Chhabil Dass Agarwal,
[2014] 1 SCC 603 is apposite which reads as under:-
"16. In the instant case, the Act provides complete machinery
for the assessment/reassessment of tax, imposition of penalty
and for obtaining relief in respect of any improper orders
passed by the Revenue Authorities, and the assessee could not
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
Signing Date:18.10.2022
19:49:04
be permitted to abandon that machinery and to invoke the
jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution when he had adequate remedy open to him by an
appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)..."
8. We have not examined the merits of the assessment orders, the rights
and contentions of the petitioner are left open to be determined in the
appellate proceedings in accordance with law.
9. The present writ petition along with the pending applications stand
disposed of.
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
MANMOHAN, J
OCTOBER 12, 2022
msh
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
Signing Date:18.10.2022
19:49:04
