PLASSERI PULIKKAL MUHAMMED ALI, vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE,

The 1st writ petition, W.P(C.) No.7829/2023 was filed before this Court with following prayers: “i) To call for the records leading to the issuance of Ext.P1, Ext.P2, Ext.P3 and Ext.P4 notices and to issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ or direction to the 1st Respondent to defer the assessment proceedings initiated pursuant to Ext.P1 and Ext.P3 notices until such time all the documents seized from the petitioners business premises are returned to petitioner and for a further period of 4 months from the date of such return. ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ or direction to the 2nd Respondent to complete the investigations against the petitioner and his related entities and release all the seized records in a time bound manner.”

This Court considering the grievance of the petitioner disposed of the said writ petition with following directions: “Considering the said stand and the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue, the present writ petition is disposed of with direction to the petitioner to move an application before the Department for supply of copies of relevant documents within a period of ten days from today. If such an application is moved, the Department should supply copies of the relevant documents and pen-drives to the petitioner within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of such application, to enable the petitioner to file proper reply to Ext.P4 notice for undertaking further proceedings. After the petitioner is given copies of the relevant documents on charge basis as above, the petitioner should file his reply to Ext.P4 notice within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copies of the relevant documents from the Department. Further proceedings in respect of Ext.P4 notice should commence after four weeks from the date of supply of copies of relevant documents to the petitioner. If the petitioner fails to file an application for supply of copies of relevant documents as above, or if the documents are provided as above and the petitioner fails to file his reply to Ext.P4 notice within four weeks from the date of receipt of copies of relevant documents, the Department should proceed with the notice in Ext.P4, in accordance with law. It is made clear that if the petitioner files his reply within a period of four weeks of receipt of copies of relevant documents, final assessment order passed by the Department in the proceedings shall not be challenged by the petitioner on the ground of limitation. To enable the parties to undertake the aforesaid exercises, further proceedings in pursuance to Ext.P4 notice shall be kept in abeyance. Interlocutory application, if any, in the present writ petition stands dismissed.”

The petitioner is an assessee under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IT Act 1961’) is engaged in the business of manufacturing wholesale and retail of gold jewellery in the brand name ‘Dubai Gold’. The petitioner has created several entities and entities including proprietor firms, partnership firms, limited liability partnership, private limited companies etc., more than 12 in numbers.

A search and seizure operation was conducted at the business and residential premises of the petitioner. Several incriminating documents, materials and hard disc of computers etc., were seized from the business and residential premises of the petitioner and proceedings have been undertaken to complete the assessment under Section 153C of the I.T Act, 1961 for the assessment years 2015-2016 to 2020-2021. The petitioner approached this Court that despite the application having been made by the petitioner, the relevant documents were not supplied to him and in absence of the documents, the petitioner was unable to give proper reply to the notices issued to him. Having considered the grievance and the stand of the revenue, this Court disposed of the said writ petition with directions as mentioned above.

Now the petitioner has approached this Court in the present writ petition with the following prayer: “To issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ or direction to the Respondent to defer the assessment U/s 153 C for the AY2011-2023 in the case of the petitioner under Ext.P1, P3 and P12 notices till the assessments in the case of the petitioner and the Dubai Gold Group of Companies u/s 147 are completed for the AY 2011-2023.”

The grievance/issue which is raised in the present writ petition was very much available to the petitioner. The petitioner did not make any prayer in the earlier writ petition in respect of the grievance/issue raised here, if any, as he stated in the present writ petition. A litigant cannot be allowed to come and file separate proceedings for each and every grievance/issue as and when he feels that same issue is there which was not raised in the earlier concluded proceedings between the same parties. This writ petition