The Director General Of Income Tax (Inv.) v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNALetters Patent Appeal No.435 of 2012 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10707 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCA), Patna 2. The Director General of Income Tax (Inv.), 9, Bailey Road, Patna ... ... Appellant/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, OldSecretariat, Patna 2. The Bihar Human Rights Commission, Patna, through its Deputy Secretary3. Rajendra Singh, S/o- Late Sardar Charan Singh, C/o- Bhargo Saw Mill,Mithapur, P.S.- Jakkanpur, Dist.- Patna ... ... Respondent/s CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAYORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 28-11-2017 In view of the order passed with regard to the sameissue in question at the instance of the respondent RajendraSingh in L.P.A. No. 787 of 2012 and the finding recorded by acoordinate Bench of this Court in a detailed order passed on 09.07.2012 which reads as under:- “In our opinion, neither of the aforesaidquestion nos. 15 or 31 indicates in any manner thatthe appellant was subjected to continuousinterrogation; nor does the above referredendorsement made at the end of question no. 31.There is one more reason why we cannot believethat interrogation was continuous as held. Thetotal interrogation runs from pp. 85 to 98 i.e.hardly 14 pages in the form of questions andanswers. It is unbelievable that for recording lessthan 15 pages of interrogation and for elicitinganswer to 41 questions the Income tax officialsrequired 36 hours of continuous exercise. Moreparticularly, quite a few questions were just apreliminary enquiry such as name, address, age,P.A. number and like information. On the contrary,the said interrogation suggests that the appellantwas non-cooperative and recalcitrant in notproducing the books of accounts. There is onemore reason for not believing the appellant. In thecomplaint he lodged before the Commission,although he had made several other allegationsthere is no complaint or a whisper about theinterrogation much less the continuousinterrogation. It may be noted here that althoughthe appellant made several allegations against theconduct of the Income tax officials he does notseem to have pressed the said allegations before the Commission. For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that inabsence of a specific allegation made by theappellant and the records produced before theCommission, the finding of the Commission thatthe appellant was subjected to 36 hours ofcontinuous interrogation is unsustainable. Thechallenge made by the appellant or theobservations made by the learned single Judge inparagraph nos. 18 to 20 of the judgment cannot becountenanced. Appeal is dismissed in limine.” We see no reason to take a different view, except toallow this appeal arising out of the same order of the writ courtwith regard to the same transaction, occurrence and issue.When a coordinate Bench of this Court has already recorded itsfinding as is detailed hereinabove with regard to violation ofhuman right to the respondent assessee. Accordingly, thisappeal has to be allowed and the order passed by the learnedWrit Court quashed in the light of the finding recorded asdetailed hereinabove. Accordingly, we allow this appeal, quash the orderpassed by the learned Writ Court on 02.02.2012 in C.W.J.C.No. 10707 of 2011 so far it adversely affects the right of theappellant department and dispose of the appeal in terms of the order already passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court asindicated hereinabove on 09.07.2012 in L.P.A. No. 787 of2012. (Rajendra Menon, CJ) (Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) P.K.P. AFR/NAFRN.A.F.R.CAV DATEN.A. Uploading Date29.11.2017Transmission Date