Sunil Kumar Sharma Vs DCIT (Karnataka High Court)
Summary: The High Court of Karnataka considered a batch of connected writ petitions arising from search and seizure proceedings and subsequent action under section 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The first petition, W.P. No.9937 of 2022, concerned Assessment Year 2015-16. The connected matters covered further assessment years and proceedings concerning Sunil Kumar Sharma and Sri Kandaswamy Rajendran.
The Revenue had conducted a search under section 132 on 02.08.2017 at the petitioner’s premises and a similar search at the premises of Sri Rajendran in New Delhi. During the latter search, diaries and loose sheets containing entries allegedly relating to the petitioner were recovered, and statements of the petitioner and Sri Rajendran were recorded. The Revenue stated that the petitioner’s case was centralised under section 127 by order dated 07.03.2018. The petitioners contended that they were not given the opportunity contemplated by section 127 and that the impugned section 153C notices were without jurisdiction because the petitioners were the searched persons rather than “other persons”.
The Revenue defended the proceedings on the basis that material had been found and seized during search, that section 132 permitted seizure of documents relating to persons other than the person searched, and that the statutory appellate remedy made the writ petitions premature. It also relied on sections 132(4), 132(4A) and 278D and argued that section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was applicable.
