High Court Of Punjab & Haryana
Baldev Raj Mehra vs. Union Of India & Ors.
Section 132
N.K. Sodhi & Jasbir Singh, JJ.
C.W.P. Nos. 14311 & 14314 of 2001
16th August, 2002
Counsel Appeared : Salil Kapoor, for the Petitioner : R.P. Sawhney, M.S. Guglani & N.L. Sharda for the Respondents
JUDGMENT
N. K. SODHI, J. :
This order will dispose of two Writ Petns. Nos. 14311 and 14314 of 2001 in which common questions of law and fact arise. Counsel for the parties are agreed that the order passed in C.W.P. No. 14311 of 2001 will govern the other case as well. The IT authorities conducted a search at the residential premises of the petitioner on 22nd July, 1999. The search proceedings are now under challenge before us in this petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution. It is not in dispute that notice under s. 158BC of the IT Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”), was issued by the Dy. CIT, Amritsar, calling upon the petitioner-assessee to file his return for the block period. Admittedly, the return was filed and the assessing authority has made the assessment pertaining to the block period in question, as per order dt. 27th July, 2001. The assessee has filed an appeal against this order. It was after the passing of this order that the present petition was filed. We have heard counsel for the parties and are of the view that the petitioner should raise all the pleas, now raised before us, before the appellate authority where the appeal is pending. Moreover, the search was conducted in July, 1999, and the writ petition was filed after a delay of more than two years. No explanation much less a satisfactory explanation has been furnished for this delay. For this reason as well, we are not inclined to interfere with the search proceedings at this stage. As already observed, the petitioner may take up all the pleas in the appeal pending before the appellate authority. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed.
[Citation : 263 ITR 535]
