Date Of Order: 26.11.2024 v. Union Of India

Serial No.03 Regular List HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYAAT SHILLONG WP (C) No.198/2024withMC (WPC) No.207/2024 Date of Order: 26.11.2024 Smt. Ibashisha Rynjah ..... Petitioner Vs. 1. Union of India, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Income Tax Department, New Delhi.Income Tax Department, New Delhi. 2. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Income Tax Department, Shillong-793001, Meghalaya.Ministry of Finance, Income Tax Department, Shillong-793001, Meghalaya. 3. The Income Tax Officer, ITO W-1, O/o Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Shillong-7930001, Meghalaya.Income Tax, Shillong-7930001, Meghalaya. 4. The State of Meghalaya, represented by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya, Shillong.Government of Meghalaya, Shillong. 5. The Superintendent of Police (city), Government of Meghalaya, East Khasi Hills District, Shillong.Khasi Hills District, Shillong. 6. The Officer-in-charge cum Investigating Officer, Laitumkhrah Police Station, Shillong, Meghalaya.Station, Shillong, Meghalaya. 7. The Branch Manager, Federal Bank Ltd., Shillong, P.B.No.25, Police Bazar, G.S. Road, Shillong, East Khasi Hills, Meghalaya-793001.Bazar, G.S. Road, Shillong, East Khasi Hills, Meghalaya-793001. 8. The Branch Manager, Bank of India, Motinagar Branch, Shillong. 9. Mr. Nirmalya Das Gupta, Newline Laitumkhrah, Opposite Laitumkhrah Presbyterian Church, Shillong-793002. Laitumkhrah Presbyterian Church, Shillong-793002. 10. Nitya Paul, Ka Phran Mawrie Complex, Laitumkhrah main road, near Beat House, Shillong-793003. near Beat House, Shillong-793003. ..... Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice I.P. Mukerji, Chief JusticeHon’ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge Appearance: For the Petitioner: Ms. S. Parueen, Adv For the Respondents : Mr. S. Chetia, Adv for R/2&3 Mr. N. Syngkon, GA Mr. J.N. Rynjah, GA Mrs. P.D. Bajurbaruah, Sr.Adv with Mr. B.A. Wanswett, Adv for R/7 Mr. Gopal Chandra Roy, Adv for R/9 Mr. T.A. Sangma, Adv for R/10 i)Whether approved forYesreporting in Law journals etc.:reporting in Law journals etc.: ii)Whether approved for publicationin press:in press: No JUDGMENT:(per the Hon’ble, the Chief Justice) (Oral) The facts as disclosed in the records are these. The petitioner is working as Director in the department of Soil,Government of Meghalaya. She is a resident of Khasi Hills. She claimsto be a member of the scheduled tribe as defined under Article 366(25)of the Constitution of India, residing in the area in Part II of the tableappended to paragraph 20 of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution. Sheclaims exemption from income tax under Section 10(26) of the IncomeTax Act, 1961. The facts that we are called upon to adjudicate cannot be and areimpossible to resolve in the exercise of our writ jurisdiction. They areglaring. According to the petitioner, the respondent No.9, a stock broker,mutual fund agent, empanelled evaluator/valuer in several bankspractised fraud on her by, inter alia, opening and maintaining fake bankaccounts, making fake investments in her name, creating fictitious e-mailaccount in her name, filing income retruns etc. by forging her signatureso as to portray a large income and investment on her part. However, thepetitioner admits of having some investment in her name out of her ownincome. Although the petitioner is not an assessee under the IncomeTax Act, 1961, the income tax department was activated by therespondent No.9 to make the petitioner an assessee. As a result of allthis, the petitioner has become involved in income tax proceedings. Shehas also become involved in criminal proceedings. Broadly, in this writ petition, the writ petitioner wants quashingof these proceedings. We were shown two assessment orders one dated 30[th] March,2022 for the assessment year 2014-15 and the other of the same date forthe assessment year 2015-16, concerning the petitioner. Although the petitioner is not an assessee under the IncomeTax Act, 1961, the income tax department was activated by therespondent No.9 to make the petitioner an assessee. As a result of allthis, the petitioner has become involved in income tax proceedings. Shehas also become involved in criminal proceedings. Broadly, in this writ petition, the writ petitioner wants quashingof these proceedings. We were shown two assessment orders one dated 30[th] March,2022 for the assessment year 2014-15 and the other of the same date forthe assessment year 2015-16, concerning the petitioner. First of all, the Income Tax Act, 1961 provides very detailedmachinery for investigation and determination of income and itsassessment to tax. It also provides a structured system for assessment,preferment of appeal from such assessment, revision and so on. The writpetitioner has to avail of that remedy which in our opinion is efficacious.Secondly, as a writ court we should not exercise jurisdiction toadjudicate upon highly disputed facts by evaluating very voluminousevidence, which is involved here. We find from the records (Annexure-18 at page 108 of the writpetition) that on 11[th] April, 2021 (the date appears to be wrong,according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, it should be 16[th] April,2022), the petitioner assessee filed an application for revision underSection 264 of the said Act for the assessment year 2014-15. On 9[th] June,2022, she withdrew it. Now, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that her client had no hand in the withdrawal of that application and that it was thehandy work of the respondent No.9. We are not going into the correctness of the allegations madeagainst the respondent No.9, narrated hereinabove. We are of the view that considering the gravity of the dispute,this application for revision under Section 264 of the said Act be treatedas pending. We set aside the alleged withdrawal of the Section 264application purported to have been made by the letter dated 9[th] June,2022. We direct the income tax authorities to hear the petitioner, therespondent No.9 and other interested parties, if any and dispose of theSection 264 application by a reasoned order within three months ofcommunication of this order. The petitioner is given liberty to make anapplication before the income tax authorities for any interim orderpending this proceeding under Section 264 of the said Act. All points arekept open before the income tax authorities. This writ petition and the miscellaneous application [MC (WPC) No.207 of 2024] are disposed of. (W. Diengdoh) (I.P. Mukerji) Judge Chief Justice