Mednomic Healthcare Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIA And 5 Ors.

The petitioner has sought to invoke the extra-ordinary and discretionary juri iction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India contending that the Warrant of Authorization issued under sub- section [1] of Section 132A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [‘the Act’, for short] in Form 45C by the Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax on 08.01.2021 was without juri iction and therefore, invalid.

From the materials on record, annexed to the writ petition, it has emerged that a search under Section 132 of the Act was conducted in the premises of the petitioner on 08.01.2021. In the course of such search, Warrant of Authorization under Section 132[1] was executed on the petitioner on 08.01.2021 and a Panchnama was drawn on 09.01.2021. 4. Prior to such search, the petitioner-assessee filed its Return of Income under Section 139 of the Act for the Assessment Year : 2020-2021 on 07.01.2020 disclosing nil income. Subsequently, Notices under Section 153A of the Act for the Assessment Year : 2015-2016 to Assessment Year : 2020-2021 were issued to the petitioner-assessee. It was followed by a Notice under Section 143[2] of the Act on the Return of Income furnished for the Assessment Year : 2021-2022, being the Assessment Year relevant to the Previous Year in which the search was conducted. On 08.11.2021, a Notice under Section 153A of the Act was issued for the Assessment Year : 2020-2021. In compliance to the afore- mentioned notice, the petitioner-assessee filed a return of income on 21.01.2022 disclosing its income as nil and claimed no refund. The Return of Income filed under Section 153A of the Act was selected for scrutiny by issuing a Notice under Section 143[2] of the Act. Thereafter, a Notice under Section Page No.# 3/6 142[1] of the Act was issued seeking various details and documents. In response to the Notice under Section 142[1], the details and documents, as sought for were submitted on 10.03.2022. Further explanations regarding certain transactions recorded in the seized documents and details extracted from seized documents were sought for.

An Assessment Order under Section 153A/143[3] read with Section 153D of the Act came to be passed by the Assessing Officer on 25.03.2022. In the Assessment Order, it was observed that in the Previous Year, the petitioner-assessee had received a cash amount of Rs. 11,65,000/- on account of ‘Premium Share Investment’ which had remained unaccounted in the regular Books of Accounts of the petitioner-assessee. Therefore, the sum of Rs. 11,65,000/- was treated as income of the petitioner- assessee within the meaning of Section 69A of the Act and charged to tax under Section 115BBE of the Act. Penalty proceeding under Section 271AAC of the Act was also initiated separately. In the Assessment Order, the Assessing Officer had assessed the petitioner-assessee under Section 153A/143[3] read with Section 153D of the Act. Computation of income and calculation of Tax was made part of the Assessment Order.

It has further emerged that aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the petitioner-assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] [‘the Appellate Authority’] under Section 250 of the Act. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal of the petitioner-assessee by an Order dated 24.01.2024. In the Appellate Order, the Appellate Authority observed that during the appellate proceeding, Notices under Section 250 of the Act were issued to the petitioner-assessee on five different dates [12.05.2022, 14.09.2023, 03.11.2023, 01.12.2023 & 04.01.2024], but there was no response to the Notices issued. In view of non-representation of the petitioner-assessee before the Appellate Authority, the Appellate Authority had observed that the cash received from the two parties, mentioned in the Assessment Order, by the petitioner-assessee remained unaccounted in the Books and no satisfactory explanation was furnished regarding the share investment. The Appellate Authority had agreed with the finding of the Assessment Officer in treating the amount as unexplained money within the meaning of the provisions of Section 69A of the Act and charged to tax under Section 115BBE of the Act. The Appellate Authority thereafter confirmed the addition of Rs. 11,65,000/- made in the Assessment Order.

Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the Appellate Order dated 24.01.2024, the petitioner-

Observing so, the Appellate Tribunal set aside the Order dated 24.01.2024 passed by the Appellate Authority. By an Order dated 07.03.2025, the Appellate Tribunal had remanded the appeal back to the Appellate Authority with the direction to the Appellate Authority to pass a fresh order after giving the petitioner-assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.

In this writ petition, the petitioner has projected that the impugned search and seizure proceeding conducted on 08.01.2021 by the respondent no. 2 and all actions taken in consequence thereof should be set aside and quashed and has sought for a direction not to initiate any proceeding in connection with the impugned search and seizure dated 08.01.2021. 10. It is not in dispute that, it was after the search conducted on 08.01.2021, the subsequent proceedings were drawn up against the petitioner-assessee under various provisions of the Act resulting in the Assessment Order dated 25.03.2022. In the appellate proceeding initiated at the instance of the petitioner-assessee as the appellant, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner-assessee despite issuance of five Notices by the Appellate Authority for its appearance and participation. In view of non-representation of the petitioner-assessee before the Appellate Authority, the Appellate Authority had passed the Order on 24.01.2024 ex-parte, affirming the Assessment Order dated 25.03.2022. Thereafter, the petitioner-assessee had preferred an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal.

The Appellate Tribunal has subsequently interfered with the Order dated 24.01.2024 of the Appellate Authority. By the Order dated 07.03.2025 while remanding back the appeal to the Appellate Authority, the Appellate Tribunal has observed that the Appellate Authority shall pass a fresh order after giving the petitioner-assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.

At the time of filing the instant writ petition, the Appellate Authority was in seisin of the appeal after its remand by the Order dated 07.03.2025 and no Appellate Order was passed in the appeal. It is the contention of the petitioner-assessee that after filing the appeal before the Appellate Authority, the petitioner-assessee had also submitted additional grounds. The petitioner-assessee has approached this Court with an apprehension that those additional grounds would not be considered by the Appellate Authority while disposing of the appeal of the petitioner-assessee.

Sub-section [5] of Section 250 of the Act has provided that the Appellate Authority may, at the hearing of an appeal, allow the appellant to go into any ground of appeal not specified in the grounds of appeal, if the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the omission of that ground from the form of appeal was not wilful or unreasonable. As at the time of preferring the writ petition, the Appellate Authority was in seisin of the appeal with the additional grounds filed by the petitioner-assessee on record the apprehension expressed by the petitioner-assessee that those additional grounds would not be considered by the Appellate Authority was clearly premature and misconceived and in such view of the matter, this writ petition is found to be premature and misconceived one.

When the appeal was pending before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority was in seisin of the appeal, the petitioner-assessee by preferring the writ petition has sought to open a second front of attack. The same is not permissible, as apart of its premature nature, the proceeding would have been a proceeding parallel to the appellate proceeding, which is not permissible in law.

A writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India during pendency of an appeal before the statutory authority raising a ground, which is available to be raised in the appeal before the statutory authority, is not maintainable. In this connection, a reference can be made to a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Bombay Metropolitan Region Development Authority, Bombay vs. Gokak Patel Volkart Ltd and others, [1995] 1 SCC 642. Page No.# 6/6

For the afore-stated reasons, the writ petition having been found not maintainable, is dismissed.

During the course of hearing today, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that during the pendency of the writ petition, the Appellate Authority has already passed an Order dismissing the appeal of the petitioner-assessee and the Appellate Order is again an ex-parte order and the additional grounds filed by the petitioner-assessee have not been considered.

If such is the contention of the petitioner-assessee that the Appellate Authority has against passed an ex-parte order without an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner-assessee and the additional grounds filed by the petitioner-assessee before the Appellate Authority have not been considered by the Appellate Authority, then it is open for the petitioner-assessee to raise all such grounds before the Appellate Tribunal in an appeal, which lies under Section 253 of the Act.