Dismissing the writ petition the Court held that, Loose sheets picked up during search under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 fall within the definition of “document”, mentioned in section 132(4).Under section 132A of the Act, a request for copies of statements made will have to be made by the person from whose custody any books of account or other documents were seized. Court observed that as seen from the assessment orders, adequate opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner by the Assessing Officer and only thereafter, the assessment orders for the seven assessment years had been passed. Each and every objection raised by the petitioner had been considered by the Assessing Officer. In the written representation of the petitioner, the petitioner had only requested for cross examination with reference to an addition in respect of loan given to one Shri Seetharaman. He had not made any request for cross examination of any other person, which was the basis for additions. No request was made by the petitioner’s father during his life time for copies of sworn statements given by him at the time of search under section 132A. The Assessing Officer had adhered to the principles of natural justice by providing a fair hearing and by giving the petitioner sufficient opportunity to raise all the contentions and the Assessing Officer had also given reasons for rejecting the objections raised by the petitioner under the assessment orders. The new plea that there had been no search but only a survey under section 133A was baseless. Court also held that the search was conducted on August 10, 2017 and the relevant six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year, in which search was conducted, are 2012-13 to 2017-18 and relevant assessment year for the date of the search was 2018-19. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the assessment orders had been passed by the Assessing Officer for the year 2018-19 without authority under law under section 153A of the Act had to be rejected. CBI v. V.C.Shukla (1998) 3SCC 410 (paras 7, 34) considered. (AY.2012-13)
M. Vivek v. Dy CIT (2021) 432 ITR 53/ 197 DTR 12/ 318 CTR 270/ 278 Taxman 52 (Mad.)(HC)
S. 153A : Assessment-Search-Participating in assessment proceedings-New plea stating that there was no search only survey was rejected-Assessment based on the statement in the course of search proceedings-Loose sheet fall within the definition of document-Rejection of request for cross examination will not amount to violation of principles of natural justice-Assessment order passed cannot be held to be without authority of law-Request for copies of statements made will have to be made by the person from whose custody any books of account or other documents were seized. [S. 132, 132(4), 132A, 133A, Art. 226]