Dr.pankaj Kumar Bhatt v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax

$~46 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +W.P.(C) 11136/2017 DR.PANKAJ KUMAR BHATT ..... Petitioner Through:Mr Sanjay Dubey and Mr NarenderSingh, Advocates. versus CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS ..... Respondents Through:Mr Ikrant Sharma and Mr LovekeshAggarwal, Advocates for R-2. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU O R D E R%15.12.2017 CM No. 45564/2017 1.Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. W.P.(C) 11136/2017 2.The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying thatdirections be issued to the Income Tax Authorities and Police Commissionerto enquire the list of dowry articles supplied by respondent no.3 beforeCAW Cell, Rohini, Delhi and investigate the sources of income in the lightof expenses alleged to have been incurred by respondent nos.3 to 5. 3.Apparently, respondent no.3 had filed a complaint indicating that anexpenditure of approximately not less than ₹1,20,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore and Twenty Lakhs) was incurred at the time of her marriage ceremony with the petitioner on 06.05.2013. It is in this context that the petitioner hadmade a complaint to the Commissioner, Income Tax to make aninvestigation. 4.It is seen that the entire purpose of the petitioner in making thecomplaints is to challenge the veracity of the statement of expenditure statedto have been incurred by the family of respondent no.3 at the time of theirmarriage.TheIncomeTaxAuthoritiesareconcernedwiththeadministration of Income Tax Act, 1961 and assessment and collection ofincome tax. They are not required to enter into any private disputes or serveas an investigation arm in aid of private disputes. Thus, this Court does notfind it apposite to issue any direction to the Income Tax Authorities. 5.Needless to mention that it is expected that the complaint made byrespondent no.3 shall be dealt with in accordance with law and the petitionerwould have full opportunity to contest any claim made by respondent no.3. 6.The petitioner also prays that the CCTV footage of his visit to CAWCell be preserved, as he alleges that he was manhandled at the said Cell. Itis seen that the concerned authorities had already communicated that theCCTV footage of the day in question has not been preserved; therefore, nosuch order can be passed at this stage. 7.The petition is disposed of. DECEMBER 15, 2017MK VIBHU BAKHRU, J