Ravi Shankar Singh vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax

PDF · subscribers
WP/11845/2021HC Madhya Pradesh14 June 2022Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU17 pages
For Petitioner: Upendra Singh BaghelFor Respondent: Advocate General
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the petitioners failed to demonstrate a breach of any statutory provision requiring the affording of a reasonable opportunity of being heard. A perusal of the assessment order indicated that notices were issued during search and seizure operations, which were responded to by the petitioner. The petitioner's returns and replies were considered before passing the assessment order. Regarding the pending litigation in the Allahabad High Court, the Court noted that it pertained to the validity of the transfer order under Section 127 and that no interim order was granted. Therefore, the pendency of that petition did not assist the petitioners. Concerning the penalty notice, the Court found that it was issued after assessment proceedings revealed tax evasion, making it within the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court declined to interfere, noting that the petitioners had an alternative statutory remedy under the Income Tax Act. The Court granted liberty to the petitioners to avail the alternative remedy before the appropriate Appellate Authority within 60 days, with the appeal to be decided on its merits without being dismissed on limitation alone, provided other statutory requirements were met.

What were the facts?

The petitioners, including individuals and a private limited company involved in business, filed multiple writ petitions challenging assessment orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Jabalpur. The assessment orders, dated April 21, 2021, pertained to assessment years 2013-14 to 2019-20. The challenge was based on grounds of denial of a reasonable opportunity of being heard, the assessment order being passed hastily before the outcome of a pending writ petition before the Allahabad High Court concerning transfer of assessment proceedings, and a penalty notice being issued prior to the assessment order. The Revenue contended that due opportunity was provided during search and seizure operations conducted on May 25, 2018, and that the petitioner's response to notices under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was considered.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned assessment order (Annexure P/1) was passed without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, in violation of statutory provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 2. Whether the impugned assessment order was passed prematurely, without awaiting the outcome of Writ Tax-121&137/2021 pending before the Allahabad High Court, which challenged the transfer of assessment proceedings under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 3. Whether the notice for penalty was validly issued without first passing an assessment order? Assessee's Contentions: - The assessment order was passed without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard. - The assessment order was passed hastily, disregarding the pending writ petition in the Allahabad High Court concerning the transfer of assessment proceedings under Section 127. - A penalty notice was issued before the assessment order was passed. Revenue's Contentions: - Due and sufficient opportunity was afforded to the petitioner during search and seizure operations conducted under Section 132. - Notices under Section 153A were issued, and the petitioner's response was considered. Objections raised by the petitioner were found untenable. - The pending writ petition in the Allahabad High Court concerned the legality of the transfer order under Section 127 and did not affect the search and seizure operations. No interim order was granted by the Allahabad High Court. - The issuance of a penalty notice was within the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction as the assessment proceedings revealed tax evasion.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132,Section 153A,Section 127,Section 143(3),Section 234(A),Section 234(B),Section 234(C),Section 234(D),Section 271(1)(c),Section 270(A),Section 271(AAB),Section 139

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU & HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S BHATTI SHRI

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S BHATTI WRIT PETITION No.11845 of 2021 Between:- 1. RAVI SHANKAR SINGH S/O GIRIJA PRASAD SINGH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCCUPATION- BUSINESSMAN. R/O 2/41, RAMNAGAR, UTTARI, DUDDHI SONBHADRA, U.P. .....PETITIONER (BY SHRI

PRASHANT

SHUKLA, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JABALPUR R/O 2ND FLOOR, 291, RAMNATH BUILDING, NAPIER TOWN, JABALPUR. 2. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL RANGE, BHOPAL R/O AAYKARBHAWAN, 48 1 ARERA HILLS, HOSHANGABAD ROAD, BHOPAL, M.P. 3. THE PRICIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL RANGE, BHOPAL, R/O AAYKARBHAWAN, 48 ARERA HILLS HOSHANGABAD ROAD, BHOPAL, M.P. ....RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI SANJAY LAL, ADVOCATE) WRIT PETITION No.11840 of 2021 Between:- 1. SURENDRA SINGH S/O SHRI RAM SINGH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCCUPATION-

BUSINESS,

R/O AMBEDKAR NAGAR, KHADIA SHAKTI NAGAR, SONBHADRA, U.P. .....PETITIONER (BY SHRI

PRASHANT

SHUKLA, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JABALPUR R/O 2ND FLOOR, 291, RAMNATH BUILDING, NAPIER TOWN, JABALPUR. 2 2. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL RANGE, BHOPAL R/O AAYKARBHAWAN, 48 ARERA HILLS, HOSHANGABAD ROAD, BHOPAL, M.P. 3. THE PRICIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL RANGE, BHOPAL, R/O AAYKARBHAWAN, 48 ARERA HILLS HOSHANGABAD ROAD, BHOPAL, M.P. ....RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI SANJAY LAL, ADVOCATE) WRIT PETITION No.11842 of 2021 Between:- 1. NEETU SINGH W/O RAVISHANKAR SINGH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCCUPATION- BUSINESS, R/O 2/41, RAMNAGAR,

UTTARI,

DUDDHI SONBHADRA, U.P. .....PETITIONER (BY SHRI

PRASHANT

SHUKLA, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, 3 JABALPUR R/O 2ND FLOOR, 291, RAMNATH BUILDING, NAPIER TOWN, JABALPUR. 2. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL RANGE, BHOPAL R/O AAYKARBHAWAN, 48 ARERA HILLS, HOSHANGABAD ROAD, BHOPAL, M.P. 3. THE PRICIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL RANGE, BHOPAL, R/O AAYKARBHAWAN, 48 ARERA HILLS HOSHANGABAD ROAD, BHOPAL, M.P. ....RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI SANJAY LAL, ADVOCATE) WRIT PETITION No.11843 of 2021 Between:- 1. OM PRAKASH SINGH S/O INDRA DEO SING AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCCUPATION-

BUSINESS,

R/O AMBEDKAR NAGAR, KHADIA SHAKTI NAGAR, SONBHADRA, U.P. .....PETITIONER (BY SHRI

PRASHANT

SHUKLA, ADVOCATE) AND 4 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JABALPUR R/O 2ND FLOOR, 291, RAMNATH BUILDING, NAPIER TOWN, JABALPUR. 2. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL RANGE, BHOPAL R/O AAYKARBHAWAN, 48 ARERA HILLS, HOSHANGABAD ROAD, BHOPAL, M.P. 3. THE PRICIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL RANGE, BHOPAL, R/O AAYKARBHAWAN, 48 ARERA HILLS HOSHANGABAD ROAD, BHOPAL, M.P. ....RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI SANJAY LAL, ADVOCATE) WRIT PETITION No.11844 of 2021 Between:- 1. SUNIL

KUMAR

SINGH

S/O CHANDESHWAR PRASAD SINGH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCCUPATION- BUSINESS. R/O AMBEDKAR NAGAR, KHADIA

SHAKTO

NAGAR, SONBHADRA, U.P. .....PETITIONER (BY SHRI

PRASHANT

SHUKLA, ADVOCATE) AND 5 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JABALPUR R/O 2ND FLOOR, 291, RAMNATH BUILDING, NAPIER TOWN, JABALPUR. 2. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL RANGE, BHOPAL R/O AAYKARBHAWAN, 48 ARERA HILLS, HOSHANGABAD ROAD, BHOPAL, M.P. 3. THE PRICIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL RANGE, BHOPAL, R/O AAYKARBHAWAN, 48 ARERA HILLS HOSHANGABAD ROAD, BHOPAL, M.P. ....RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI SANJAY LAL, ADVOCATE) WRIT PETITION No.11853 of 2021 Between:- 1. MINETECH

ENGINEERS

INDIA PRIVATE.LTD

THROUGH

ITS DIRECTOR, SANJIV TEWARI S/O SURENDRANATH

TEWARI

AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCCUPATION- BUSINESS, R/O AMBEDKAR NAGAR, KHADIA,

SHAKTI

NAGAR, SONBHADRA, U.P. .....PETITIONER 6 (BY SHRI PRASHANT SHUKLA, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JABALPUR R/O 2ND FLOOR, 291, RAMNATH BUILDING, NAPIER TOWN, JABALPUR. 2. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL RANGE, BHOPAL R/O AAYKARBHAWAN, 48 ARERA HILLS, HOSHANGABAD ROAD, BHOPAL, M.P. 3. THE PRICIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL RANGE, BHOPAL, R/O AAYKARBHAWAN, 48 ARERA HILLS HOSHANGABAD ROAD, BHOPAL, M.P. ....RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI SANJAY LAL, ADVOCATE) WRIT PETITION No.11863 of 2021 Between:- 1. SANJIV TEWARI S/O SURENDRANATH TEWARI AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCCUPATION- BUSINESS, R/O B 38/46, MOHINIKUNJ,

MAHMOORGANJ, VARANASI, U.P. 7 .....PETITIONER (BY SHRI

PRASHANT

SHUKLA, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JABALPUR R/O 2ND FLOOR, 291, RAMNATH BUILDING, NAPIER TOWN, JABALPUR. 2. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL RANGE, BHOPAL R/O AAYKARBHAWAN, 48 ARERA HILLS, HOSHANGABAD ROAD, BHOPAL, M.P. 3. THE PRICIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL RANGE, BHOPAL, R/O AAYKARBHAWAN, 48 ARERA HILLS HOSHANGABAD ROAD, BHOPAL, M.P. ....RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI SANJAY LAL, ADVOCATE) WRIT PETITION No.11936 of 2021 Between:- 1. M/S ROYAL CONSTRUCTION, NEETU SINGH W/O RAVISHANKAR SINGH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCCUPATION- BUSINESS,

R/O

WARD

NO.8, 8 PRAIBHAPURAM

COLONY ROBERTSGANJ, SONBHADRA, U.P. .....PETITIONER (BY SHRI PRASHANT SHUKLA, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JABALPUR R/O 2ND FLOOR, 291, RAMNATH BUILDING, NAPIER TOWN, JABALPUR. 2. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL RANGE, BHOPAL R/O AAYKARBHAWAN, 48 ARERA HILLS, HOSHANGABAD ROAD, BHOPAL, M.P. 3. THE PRICIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL RANGE, BHOPAL, R/O AAYKARBHAWAN, 48 ARERA HILLS HOSHANGABAD ROAD, BHOPAL, M.P. ....RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI SANJAY LAL, ADVOCATE WRIT PETITION No.12660 of 2021 Between:- 1. RAJNISH CHOPRA S/O BHIMSEN CHOPRA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCCUPATION- BUSINESS, R/O WARD 9 NO.8 , GAYATRI MANDIR ROAD, SINGRAULI, M.P. .....PETITIONER (BY SHRI

PRASHANT

SHUKLA, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JABALPUR R/O 2ND FLOOR, 291, RAMNATH BUILDING, NAPIER TOWN, JABALPUR. 2. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT THROUGH THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL RANGE, BHOPAL R/O AAYKARBHAWAN, 48 ARERA HILLS, HOSHANGABAD ROAD, BHOPAL, M.P. 3. THE PRICIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL RANGE, BHOPAL, R/O AAYKARBHAWAN, 48 ARERA HILLS HOSHANGABAD ROAD, BHOPAL, M.P. ....RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI SANJAY LAL, ADVOCATE) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reserved on : 30.03.2022 Passed on : 14.06.2022 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10 Per : Justice Sheel Nagu : ORDER 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 11 order for transfer of assessment passed u/S 127 of the 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 the IT Act 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 the IT Act, six notices u/S. 153A of the IT Act 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 the IT Act for the respective assessment years may be treated as return of income filed u/S 153A of the IT Act 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 the IT Act 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 12 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) 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 read with Section 143(3) of the IT Act for assessment year 2013-14 to 2018-19 and assessment u/S 143(3) of the IT Act for assessment year 2019-20 interest if applicable u/Ss 234(A), 234(B), 234(C) and 234(D) of the IT Act 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 the IT Act for assessment year 2017-18 and penalty notice u/S 271(AAB) of the IT act 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. 13 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 the IT Act. 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 14 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 YS 15 Digitally signed by YOGESH KUMAR SHIRVASTAVA Date: 2022.06.15 14:33:47 +05'30' - 16 - - 17 -

More judgments on Section 132

All 14,598 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →