MISTY MEADOWS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner by way of this writ petition seeks quashing of the search proceedings and consequent panchnama dtd. 24/7/2016 and 19/9/2016 drawn against it by respondent nos. 2 and 3; further prayer to quash the notice dtd. 5/1/2018 issued by respondent no.4; and the assessment order and notice of even dtd. 7/2/2024 issued by the respondents raising a demand for the assessment year 2011-2012 of a sum of 3,29,49,65,089/- under Sec. 156 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act').

(2.) Brief facts which have been culled out from the pleadings are that against the petitioner company search and seizure operation was conducted under Sec. 132 of the Act on 30/6/2011. Pursuant to the search proceedings, the assessments for A.Y. 2006-07 to 2012-13 were framed. Notice under Sec. 153A of the Act was issued on 28/12/2012 and the petitioner company was asked to furnish the return of total income including the undisclosed income. Final assessment was framed under Sec. 153 A of the Act vide Assessment Order dtd. 28/2/2014. The returned income of 70,15,770/- was accepted.

(3.) It is submitted that thereafter in 2016 a search and seizure operation was conducted against M3M India Limited company at its office at Paras Twin, Tower-B, 6th Floor, Golf Course Road, Sector-54, Gurgaon, which was its registered office and business premises. However, while preparing panchnama drawn at the Paras Twin Tower-B, Gurgaon, name of the petitioner company was also added although it is asserted that no authorization for search and seizure under Sec. 132 of the Act was issued in the name of the petitioner nor any search or seizure was conducted at the premises or registered office of the petitioner company, which was situated at Shop No.4/36, DDA Market, Dakshin Puri Extension, New Delhi-110062 with effect from 2/5/2011. It is stated that the office premises were known to the respondent authorities as it was existing from A.Y. 2011-2012 at the time of search and seizure conducted against the petitioner.