ASSAM WOOD AND ALLIED PRODUCTS Vs. CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through the instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the constitution of India, the petitioner prays for quashing the orders dated 4.7.2017 and 14.6.2017, Annexures P.19 and P.13 respectively, rejecting its application under Section 144A of the Act and the grievance petition. Further prayer has been made for a direction to the respondents that the diary/note book seized during survey proceedings and the statement be directed to be sent for forensic re-examination to CFSL Chandigarh and to keep in abeyance the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 2014- 15 and not to conclude the matter without permission from this Court.

(2.) A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the petition may be noticed. The petitioner is a partnership firm based at Jagadhri, Haryana. It is engaged in the manufacturing and sale of wooden ply. On 28/29th August 2013, a survey operation was conducted under Section 133A of the Act at the business premises of the petitioner. During the course of survey operations, statement of Shri Satish Kumar Goel, partner in the aforesaid firm, was recorded, surrendering undisclosed income of Rs. 8 crores. While Shri Satish Kumar Goel was not allowed to contact any family members, the survey party got a note book/diary written in the handwriting of his son. The entries in the alleged diary did not bear any full name, address etc. The surrender extracted under duress and coercion was retracted by the petitioner vide letter addressed to the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. However, no reply was received by the petitioner till date. The petitioner requested respondent No.4 to refer the said diary/note book to the Forensic laboratory for their expert opinion on the contention of its having been written in one go at the same time by the same person. Having received no response, the petitioner filed application under Section 144A of the Act before respondent No.3 praying that the said diary be referred to the Forensic laboratory for examination and no reliance be made on the statement which was retracted. Respondent No.3 rejected the application under Section 144A of the Act. The petitioner approached this court through a writ petition. Vide order dated 9.12.2016, this court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to send the diary and the statements for forensic examination. Liberty was also granted to approach this court again if the report of CFSL in whole or in part was not accepted by either of the party. Report dated 17.3.2017 of CFSL was forwarded by respondent No.4 to the petitioner vide letter dated 30.5.2017. In the report, it was stated that it had not been possible to determine the absolute or relative age of the writing in the note book for the reason that no such methodology/technique was available in the laboratory. The petitioner requested respondent No.4 for sending the note book and statement for forensic reexamination to CFSL Chandigarh. Having heard nothing, the petitioner again filed application under Section 144A of the Act before respondent No.3 with the same prayer. The petitioner also requested that the said report be sent to any other CFSL in India. Vide order dated 4.7.2017, the application was rejected by respondent No.3. Before filing application under Section 144A of the Act, the petitioner filed a grievance petition before respondent No.2 to pursue the matter administratively which was also rejected vide order dated 14.6.2017 by respondent No.2. The petitioner again filed a grievance petition before respondent No. l. Having received no response, the petitioner has approached this court through the instant petition.

(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.