| COURT: | Delhi High Court |
| CORAM: | S. Muralidhar J, Vibhu Bakhru J |
| SECTION(S): | 153A |
| GENRE: | Domestic Tax |
| CATCH WORDS: | block assessment, incriminating material |
| COUNSEL: | Piyush Kaushik |
| DATE: | April 29, 2016 (Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: | May 4, 2016 (Date of publication) |
| AY: | 1998-99, 1999-00 |
| FILE: | Click here to download the file in pdf format |
| CITATION: | |
| S. 153A assessment cannot be made for the AYs in which incriminating material is not recovered even though incriminating material may be recovered for other years in the block of 6 years | |
The High Court had to consider whether there had to be incriminating material recovered during the search qua the Assessee in each of the years for the purposes of framing an assessment under Section 153A of the Act. HELD by the High Court:
(i) It is not in dispute that in respect of the Assessee for the AYs in question the initial assessment proceedings took place under Section 143(3) of the Act. Thereafter they were sought to be reopened by issuing notice under Section 147 of the Act and re-assessment orders were passed under Section 147 read with Section 143(3) of the Act. During both the aforementioned proceedings the question whether the gold and silver utensils were the capital assets or personal effects of the Assessee was examined. They were held not to be the personal effects.
(i) It has been noticed by the ITAT in the impugned order that for the AYs in question no incriminating material qua the Assessee was found. In that view of the matter, and in light of the decision of this Court in CIT v. Kabul Chawla [2016] 380 ITR 573 (Delhi), the Court is of the view that the impugned order of the ITAT suffers from no legal infirmity and no substantial question of law arises for determination.
simple legal principles are not followed by revenue is indeed making the revenue not a rightlegal authority to issue legal orders ; when so how the rudimentary officer like an AO can issue the notices when the very revenue is not right when it fails to appreciate very natural justice principles like audi alteram partem ; thank God ‘natural justice principle paradigm’ is there; else the revenue would just rob every tax payer right and left, royally!
see very judiciary failed in not rightly appreciating Art.16(4) which clearly states, even economically weaker section ie EWS cannot get reservation when so how the backward reservation created by VP Singh under Mondal commission which obviously had no really statistically correctly supported document; this happened by so called ‘judicial restraint paradigm principle’ so ; judicial restraint cannot be a right method to be accepted by highest judiciary, if done what kind of problems are going on even today when you see Gujarat govt has illegally approved patidars desire for reservation , that s again a product of Kerala statute of creamy layer reservation as a fall out of 1992 indra shahani case where in Supreme court issued contempt Notice on the kerala chief secretary who exceeded 50% reservation paradigm. so obviously judicial restraint shd be avoided; so USSC stopped using judicial restraint, see now Donald Trump says he wants to see NY Times v Sullivan (1964) is reviewed to curtail the powers of the media if he is elected as the president of the USA, like him we had a person in VP Singh them followed by Karunakaran as CM of kerala, so now too the CM of Gujarat Smt Anandibehen so also today you have CM Fadnavis wants to save the faked caste certificated illegal public servants who have been there since 1976, now in maharashtra alone about one lakh fellows, where would end the justice system if judicial restraint is insisted upon, so rightlt Aurangabad bench of bombay high court rightly stayed his order from TAC as its chairman, and told the CM better pass a statute regularizing the faked fellows; but under a writ if any moves against the statue , the court would declare that new so called statute ‘ultra vires’ so judicial restraint need not be the ruling tenet in the minds of Custodians of the Indian constitution is my considered view like USSC CJ G.Reberts view on gay marriages recently though 4 out of 5 approved but CJ rightly said, there is no constitutional principle to allow such marriages, besides 10 out of 193 UN member countries outlawed the Gay marriages, as no gay can conceive any child that means population cannot grow unless hetro sexual relations are there; though is one among the 10 countries how can we call india is a mentally matured country today, as india had gay relations time immemorial, but never recognized as an institution of marriage as such; when millennium years of exposure of india has nt really educated modern 21st century great hair brained law makers of india.
So Democracy correctly to follow the paradigm of Montesquieu of separation of powers as the separation of powers is hidden principle paradigm in very democracy itself i.e. by te people,for the people, to the people meant , all three positions xhd never be in nexus; if allowed such nexus, naturally these democracies would turn out to be worst Hitler type regimes is obvious.
None can deny so the constitutional courts need to phase out the judicial restraint paradigm as done away in the USA, though it had protagonists in CJ Story, Frankfrter and in some more judges;
Judicial restraint only indulges in nexus concept obviously against the real democratic principles.