Prashant Shukla, Adv. for the Petitioner. Sanjay Lal, Adv. for the Respondent.

The petitions registered as W.P. No.11845/2021, W.P. No.11840/2021, W.P. No.11842/2021, W.P. No.11843/2021, W.P. No.11844/2021, W.P. No.11853/2021, W.P. No.11863/2021, W.P. No.11936/2021 & W.P. No.12660/2021 involve common question of law based on similar factual matrix and, therefore, are being decided by the present common order. The factual matrix of W.P. No.11845/2021 is considered for disposal of all the connected matters.

2. Learned counsel for rival parties are heard on the question of admission so also on final disposal.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner, Shri Prashant Shukla while assailing the impugned assessment order dated 21.04.2021 passed by Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Jabalpur contained in Annexure P/1 pertaining to assessment year 2013-14 to 2018-19 and 2019-20 raised the following grounds :-

(i) The impugned order of assessment (Annexure P/1) is passed without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.

(ii) The impugned assessment order has been passed post haste without waiting for the outcome of Writ tax- 121&137/2021 pending before the Allahabad High Court in which petitioner herein is one of the petitioners and in which the order for transfer of assessment passed u/S 127 (of Income Tax Act, 1961) (for brevity “the IT Act”) is assailed. (iii) The notice for penalty has been issued without first passing an assessment order.

4. Learned counsel for the Revenue on the other hand submits that due and sufficient opportunity was afforded to the petitioner during the proceedings of search and seizure operations conducted u/S. 132 (of Income Tax Act, 1961) on nine residential premises, one business premises and seven bank lockers of Ravishankar Group, Singrauli (M.P.) on 25.05.2018. It is submitted by the Revenue that in terms of the procedure prescribed u/S. 132 (of Income Tax Act, 1961), six notices u/S. 153A (of Income Tax Act, 1961) were issued to the petitioner on 20th January, 2020 in respect of different assessment years from 2013-14 to 2018-19. The Revenue further submits that the petitioner was called upon by these notices to furnish return in prescribed form for each of the six assessment years. In response, the petitioner submitted letter dated 04.01.2021 stating that the return filed u/S 139 (of Income Tax Act, 1961) for the respective assessment years may be treated as return of income filed u/S 153A (of Income Tax Act, 1961) for the six assessment years under scanner. The Revenue further submits that based on the information so provided by the owner, the same was assessed and the objections raised by the petitioner were found to be untenable and thus rejected on 18.02.2020. The Revenue further submits that while doing so, the Assessing Officer took into account the pending Writ petition in the Allahabad High Court assailing the order passed u/S 127 (of Income Tax Act, 1961) for centralization of a case of assessee with the Central Circle, Jabalpur which came into existence after restructuring of Department in 2014. The Revenue also submits that since business activities of the petitioner are carried out in Singrauli which is in Madhya Pradesh, search was carried out by the investigating wing of Jabalpur and therefore centralization of the case was sought and granted with the Central Circle, Jabalpur. It is urged by the Revenue that petitioner filed returns of computation of income and the reply to the letter u/S 142(1) (of Income Tax Act, 1961) which were examined and after scrutiny, following various discrepancies as mentioned in the impugned assessment order were noticed including unexplained expenditure, concealing of income, failure to disclose relevant details etc which led to passing of the impugned assessment order u/S 153A (of Income Tax Act, 1961) read with Section 143(3) (of Income Tax Act, 1961) for assessment year 2013-14 to 2018-19 and assessment u/S 143(3) (of Income Tax Act, 1961) for assessment year 2019-20 interest if applicable u/Ss 234(A), 234(B) (of Income Tax Act, 1961), 234(C) (of Income Tax Act, 1961) and 234(D) (of Income Tax Act, 1961) were also directed to be issued. Notice for penalty pu/S 271(1)(c) of IT Act for assessment year 2013-14 to 2016-17 were also issued. Further impugned notice u/S 270(A) (of Income Tax Act, 1961) for assessment year 2017-18 and penalty notice u/S 271(AAB) (of Income Tax Act, 1961) for assessment year 2018-19 and 2019-20 were issued. The impugned assessment order was passed by by Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Central Range, Bhopal.

4.1 The aforesaid assessment order is under challenge herein primarily on account of non affording of opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner has though vehemently argued qua issue of non affording of opportunity but has not been able to point out a single statutory provision relating to affording of opportunity contained in any of the relevant provisions of the IT Act which according to the the petitioner has been breached.

6. A bare perusal of the impugned assessment order reveals that notice was issued to the petitioner during the conduction of search and seizure operations which were duly responded to by the petitioner by contending that the returns already filed by him be treated as returns for the purpose of search and seizure proceedings. More so, the said return of computation of income and reply of the petitioner were taken into account before the impugned assessment order was passed. During the search and seizure operations, discrepancies were found which indicated towards tax evasion.

7. The ground taken by the petitioner of pendency of the litigation in the Allahabad High Court is of no assistance since the cause raised therein is regarding legality and validity of the order of transfer passed u/S 127 (of Income Tax Act, 1961). Assuming without admitting that the said petition is allowed by the Allahabad High Court, even then the search and seizure operation which led to the passing of impugned order herein would not be adversely affected. More so, Allahabad High Court has not granted any interim order in favour of the petitioner.

8. As regards the ground of penalty notice having been issued without passing an assessment order, the same further does not assist the petition since the impugned order is an order of assessment arrived at after conduction of detailed search and seizure operation of assessment proceedings which found the petitioner to be involved in tax evasion and therefore it was well within the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to have issued notice for penalty.

9. In the conspectus of above discussion and the failure of the petitioners to make out a case of denial of reasonable opportunity of being heard, this Court declines interference, especially when the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy under the IT Act which has not been availed yet.

10. Consequently, this Court declining interference extends liberty to the petitioners to avail the alternative remedy before the appropriate Appellate Authority which if availed within a period of 60 days from today shall be considered and decided on its own merits without being dismissed on limitation alone, provided the petitioner complies with all other statutory requirements.

(SHEEL NAGU) (MANINDER S BHATTI)

JUDGE JUDGE