M.j.shankar v. The Director Of Income Tax (Investigation)

M.J.Shankar .. Petitioner Vs 1.The Director of Income Tax (Investigation), No.108, Mahatma Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 034. 2.The Joint Director of Income Tax (Investigation), No.108, Mahatma Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 034. 3.The Central Bureau of Investigation (Special Unit), 'A' Wing - 3rd Floor, Rajaji Bhawan, Besant Nagar, Chennai - 600 090... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing therespondents 1 and 2 to complete the investigation on mycomplaint dated 06.10.2015 and the act upon the saidinvestigation within a time frame to be fixed by this Court maydeem it fit and necessary on the facts and circumstances of thecase. The petitioner herein has provided a secret information tothe respondents and based upon the same sought action againstthe entity, who is not before us. As no action was forthcoming,the petitioner has come forward with this writ petition seekinga direction to the respondents to complete the investigation onhis complaint dated 06.10.2015 and act upon the same. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The aforesaid petition filed by the petitioner dated06.10.2015 is the tax evasion petition in respect of certainland transactions between the parties mentioned in thememorandum of understanding. 3. The petitioner submitted that it is the respondents whohave not taken action on the information furnished. Section 147r/w 149 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 would not stand in the wayin the teeth of Section 153-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Inthe year 2017, an amendment has been made to the extending thetime period of six years for the purpose of investigation quasearch assessment to 10 years. Therefore, the writ petition willhave to be allowed. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2submitted that the period of six years is over since the allegedoccurrence was much earlier. Therefore, there is a bar under theAct to go into the allegations and the materials made by thepetitioner against the third party for the purpose of initiatingaction. Section 147 of the Act deals with the income escapingassessment. This provision has to be read along with Section 149of the Act which prescribes time limit for notice. As perSection 149 of the Act, the time limit is four years with anexception being two more years. Accordingly, the total periodis six years. Section 153-A of the Act cannot be pressed intoservice since it speaks of assessment in case of search orrequisition. The said situation is not available on hand.Therefore, the writ petition will have to be dismissed. 5. We have heard the petitioner and the learned counselappearing for the respondents. 6. Though the petitioner submitted that Section 153-A of theAct will also apply to a case of requisition, the same cannot beattributable at the instance of the petitioner. Initiation ofsearch and requisition have to be attributed to the departmentalone. Otherwise Section 153 of the Act can never be applied.The word “initiation” of search has to be kept in mind in givinginterpretation to the word “requisitioning of”. Whileinterpreting the revenue statute one has to adopt a meaningwhich is beneficial to the assessee. The person against whom thepetitioner seeks action is not before us. In fact, the saidfactual position has also been noted by this court when an orderwas passed on 21.08.2018 directing the petitioner to impleadthe person against whom he wants action to be taken. Thoughnotice was ordered in the impleading petition filed pursuant tothe above said order in W.M.P.No.26821 of 2020, as of now,service has not been effected. 7. A perusal of the counter affidavit also would show thatthe information provided by the petitioner on 06.10.2015 beingpertaining to the year 2005-2008 is barred by limitation. Toinitiate search is a role which is to be played by thedepartment alone and for doing so, there has to be a subjectivesatisfaction under Section 132 of the Act. Therefore, this courtcannot direct the respondents 1 and 2 to undertake the said rolenot it can perform it by itself. Thus looking from anyperspective we do not find any merit in the writ petition. 8. In the light of the discussions made above, we are of theview that the petitioner cannot seek such a relief before thiscourt. Certainly, Section 153-A of the Act prohibits granting ofthe relief. The petitioner has come forward to file this writpetition anticipating reward from the respondents. Such arequest cannot be at the cost of an assessee. When the lawprohibits an action and the department itself has come forwardto file an affidavit before this court that they are unable toinitiate action, a writ of mandamus cannot be issued. 9. This writ petition stands dismissed accordingly. Nocosts. Consequently, connected WMPs are closed. -s/d- Assistant Registrar True Copy Sub-Assistant RegistrarTo 1.The Director of Income Tax (Investigation),No.108, Mahatma Gandhi Salai,Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 034. 2.The Joint Director of Income Tax (Investigation),No.108, Mahatma Gandhi Salai,Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 034. 3.The Central Bureau of Investigation (Special Unit),'A' Wing - 3rd Floor,Rajaji Bhawan, Besant Nagar, Chennai - 600 090. +1 CC to Mr.A.P.Srinivas, Advocate sr 30042. W.P.No.2542 of 2018 GJ(CO)SP(16/10/2020) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/