Himanshu Verma v. Principal Commissioner Income Tax

$~8 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +W.P.(C) 1978/2024 and CM APPL. 27753/2024 HIMANSHU VERMA .....PetitionerThrough:Mr Gagan Gupta, senior advocatewith Mr Arkaj Kumar, Mr MananBatra,MsTanyaAggarwal,MrAakarsh Mishra, Mr Ishnk Jha andMs Vaishnavi Bhargava, Advocates.with Mr Arkaj Kumar, Mr MananBatra,MsTanyaAggarwal,MrAakarsh Mishra, Mr Ishnk Jha andMs Vaishnavi Bhargava, Advocates. versus PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), DELHI-3 & ANR. .....Respondents Through:Mr Zoheb Hossain, special counselwith Mr Shlok Chandra, Ms NaincyJain, Ms Madhavi Shukla and MrUjjwal Jain, Advocates. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRUHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIAO R D E R09.05.2025 % 1.At the outset, it is pointed out that an inadvertent error that has creptin the order dated 30.04.2025, as the prayers reproduced in paragraph no.1of the order are not the prayers made in the present petition. Accordingly,the order dated 30.04.2025 is rectified to read as under: “1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia,praying as under:praying as under: “A.mandamus and/or other appropriate writ therebydirecting the Respondent to provide certified copiesof all material seized by the department from theofficial premises of the Petitioner on 13.04.2017;directing the Respondent to provide certified copiesof all material seized by the department from theofficial premises of the Petitioner on 13.04.2017; B.mandamus and/or other appropriate writ thereby directing the Respondent to grant the Petitioner areasonable period of time to peruse, collate and affixrelevant material on record along with a detailedreply to the Show Cause Notice dated 22.12.2023issued under section 279(1) of the Income Tax Actand the communication dated 22.12.2023 bearing no.CC- 26/2023-24; C.mandamus and/or other appropriate writ therebyrestraining the Respondent from proceeding with theadjudication of the Show Cause Notices dated22.12.2023 and 03.02.2024 issued under section279(1) of the Income Tax Act, for AY 2018-2019and AY 2012-2013 to 2017-2018, respectively, andthe communication dated 22.12.2023 bearing no. CC-26/2023-24;”restraining the Respondent from proceeding with theadjudication of the Show Cause Notices dated22.12.2023 and 03.02.2024 issued under section279(1) of the Income Tax Act, for AY 2018-2019and AY 2012-2013 to 2017-2018, respectively, andthe communication dated 22.12.2023 bearing no. CC-26/2023-24;” 2.Insofar as the first prayer is concerned, there is noobjection that the certified copies of the seized material arerequired to be provided to the petitioner.It is material tonote that the petitioner had sought copies of the documentsseized by the department pursuant to a show cause noticedated 22.12.2023 issued by the concerned Income TaxAuthority, calling upon the petitioner to show cause whysanction for prosecution not be launched. The petitioner wascalled upon to furnish its explanation along with documents.This court is informed that pursuant to the show cause notice,order sanctioning prosecution was passed and prosecutionhas since been instituted.In the aforesaid background, itprima facie appears that other prayers made in the presentpetition have been rendered infructuous and the petitioner’sgrievance if any, would lie against the sanction order and theproceedings initiated pursuant thereto. 3.However, it is material to note that the it is thepetitioner’s case that it has not received the documents whichwere necessary to respond to the show cause notice. TheRevenue seeks to contest the petitioner’s claim that it was nothanded over the copies of the documents / documents, which were seized by the department.In this regard, attention isdrawn to the orders of this court where contention of theRevenue to the aforesaid effect is recorded. 4.However, the said contention is stoutly disputed by thepetitioner. According to the petitioner, the documents soughtfor have not been provided. 3.However, it is material to note that the it is thepetitioner’s case that it has not received the documents whichwere necessary to respond to the show cause notice. TheRevenue seeks to contest the petitioner’s claim that it was nothanded over the copies of the documents / documents, which were seized by the department.In this regard, attention isdrawn to the orders of this court where contention of theRevenue to the aforesaid effect is recorded. 4.However, the said contention is stoutly disputed by thepetitioner. According to the petitioner, the documents soughtfor have not been provided. 5.The learned counsel appearing for the Revenue statesthat the acknowledgments furnished by the petitioner are noton record and seeks time to produce the same. 6.Let the same be filed within a period of one week fromdate. 7.List on 09.05.2025.” 2.Mr Hossain, learned counsel appearing for the respondent reiterateshis submission that the respondent has no objection in providing the certifiedcopy of the seized material as the same is, in any event, required to beprovided to the petitioner. 3.Insofar as the respondent’s contention that copies of the documentsseized by the Revenue were handped over to the petitioner is concerned, hesubmits that there are no acknowledgments, which are readily available atthis stage. He submits that efforts were made to trace the same, but they arenot readily traceable. 4.In view of the above, the respondent’s contention that the copies ofthe documents were, in fact, handed over to the petitioner cannot be readilyaccepted. However, we do not consider it apposite to issue any furtherorders in this regard, as the proceedings to prosecute the petitioner havebeen initiated; cognizance of the offence has also been taken; and the matter is now listed for pre-charge evidence before the concerned JudicialMagistrate. 5.The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitionerreserves the right to challenge the initiation of prosecution before theconcerned authority on account of non-supply of documents at the pre-sanction stage. 6.In view of the above, we consider it apposite to clarify that all rightsand contentions of the parties regarding the alleged non-supply ofdocuments are reserved. Nothing stated in this order shall be construed as anexpression of opinion in that regard. 7.Insofar as the first prayer is concerned, we allow the same. Therespondent shall provide the petitioner with copies of the complete set ofdocuments that were seized, within a period of three weeks from date. 8.The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid conditions. The pendingapplication is also disposed of. VIBHU BAKHRU, J MAY 09, 2025RK TEJAS KARIA, J Click here to check corrigendum, if any