BEST STEEL TRADERS, vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner assessee impugning Ext.P9 assessment order dated 02.09.2022 in respect of the assessment year 2020-21. The petitioner is a partnership firm. The petitioner assessee filed return of its income dated 15.02.2021 for the assessment year 2020-21. The petitioner assessee's return was selected for scrutiny. A search/survey under Section 132A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted in the case of Olive Builders Group, Kochi on 16.05.2019. During the search, it was noticed that the said Olive Builders had made unaccounted cash payments to contractors and suppliers. The petitioner firm was the main steel supplier of Olive Builders group. Accordingly, a survey under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was undertaken at the building premises of the petitioner on 30.07.2019. At the time of assessment proceedings, the petitioner had discontinued the steel trading business and got engaged in Battery Lead manufacturing and trading for its sister concern, namely M/s. Best Smelters situated at Kanjikode, Palakkad.

There were several unaccounted receipts, including one of Rs. 92,00,827/-, which was received in the bank account of the petitioner and was reflected in the excel sheet recovered with regard to the unaccounted cash transaction from Lead Smelting Business. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this excel sheet was not put to the petitioner for explanation and therefore, the petitioner could not explain the said cash receipt of Rs.92,00,824/-. However, in paragraph 6 of the assessment order, it is recorded that the assessee was required to explain this cash receipt of Rs.92,00,824/- vide notice dated 20.01.2022 to which the assessee had given vague reply/explanation. The Assessing Authority finds that there were clear evidence of receipts in cash in the Excel Sheet maintained by the assessee firm, the said amount was taken as undisclosed sales and accordingly, an amount of Rs.92,00,824/- was added to the total income of the petitioner.

Considering the said finding recorded regarding the issuance of notice and reply given by the petitioner, I do not find that there is any substance in the submission on the part of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the said Excel Sheet was not put to the notice of the petitioner for explanation. Be that is it may, the petitioner has a remedy before the Appellate Authority against the assessment order, and this Court in exercise of its juri iction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not examine the assessment order on merits as this Court does not find that there has been any violation of the principles of natural justice as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Thus, this writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority, if so advised and if the appeal is filed, the same shall be decided in accordance with law. DINESH KUMAR SINGH