Wp/25838/2007 Of P. Durga Prasad v. The Chief Vigilance Commissioner, Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF JUNETWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENTTHE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARIAND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 25838 OF 2007 Between: P.Durga Prasad AND ..... PETITIONER The Chief Vigilance Commissioner,Income Tax Department,New Delhi and two others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER:(per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) The petitioner questions inaction on the part of thesecond respondent in not taking any action against thethird respondent in pursuance of his representationsdated 8.3.2006 and 17.5.2006 for fabricating theincome tax returns for the assessment years 1999-2000 to 2001-2002 filed by the third respondent and toconsequently direct the first and second respondents toconduct thorough enquiry on the aboverepresentations. It is case of the petitioner that the thirdrespondent, after several deliberations, hass agreed topurchase one of his properties and has paid a sum ofRs.50.00 lakhs as advance on various dates and onadvice, he has not shown the said amount in hisincome tax returns inasmuch as the same is only anadvance and he was intending to show the same asand when regular sale deed is executed in favour of thethird respondent, but the third respondent has shownthe said sum in his income tax returns. It is furtherstated that contrary to the said understanding, the thirdrespondent has filed suit OS No. 542 of 2001 before theXI Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against thepetitioner for recovery of the said sum with interest as ifthe third respondent had given hand loan to thepetitioner. To disprove the claims made by the thirdrespondent in the suit, the petitioner filedrepresentations to the second respondent for furnishingcertified copies of the income tax returns of the thirdrespondent for the assessment years 1999-2000 to2001-2002 so as to file the same before the trial court.Since the second respondent has not furnished the certified copies sought for by the petitioner, he filed I.A.No. 174 of 2002 in OS No. 542 of 2001 for summoningthe above returns of the third respondent, which wasallowed by the trial court on 26.9.2002. Aggrievedthereby, the third respondent preferred CRP No. 4702of 2002 and obtained stay and in the meanwhile, thethird respondent tampered with the income tax returns,sought to be summoned, by inserting new sheets inplace of the old one and thus fabricated the returns incollusion with some of the officials of the secondrespondent and thereafter withdrew the C.R.P. It isfurther stated that the arbitration proceedings ended incompromise which, however, failed due to the inactionof the third respondent in complying the terms. Theoriginal income tax returns were marked as Exs.35 to37 on behalf of the petitioner and the fabricated incometax returns were marked as Exs. R-13 to 15 on behalf ofthe third respondent before the Arbitrator. It is the caseof the petitioner that the income tax returns submitted bythe third respondent were fabricated with the help ofsome of the officials of the second respondent and, assuch, it is just and necessary to conduct investigationby the first and second respondents, as to how thesecond respondent did not demand the tax on theinterest component, if the amount shown in the returnsis a hand loan. Therefore, sought for an enquiry. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner andthe learned Special Standing Counsel for Income Taxfor the learned counsel appearing for the thirdrespondent. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner andthe learned Special Standing Counsel for Income Taxfor the learned counsel appearing for the thirdrespondent. It is the contention of the learned counsel for thepetitioner that the income tax returns submitted by thethird respondent for the assessment years 1999-2000to 2001-2002 before the second respondent werefabricated subsequently with the help of some of theofficials of the second respondent after obtaining ordersof stay in Civil Revision Petition No.4702 of 2002 and,as such, to disprove the claim of the third respondentthat he has lent him a sum of Rs.50.00 lakhs as handloan, he submitted representations dated 8.3.2006 and17.5.2006 to cause enquiry, but the respondents 1 and2 have not acted in the way they ought to have and,therefore, the present writ petition is filed seeking adirection to the respondents 1 and 2 to conduct athorough enquiry on the returns submitted by the thirdrespondent. Per contra, it is contended by the learned counselappearing for the third respondent that sinceassessments have been revised by the respondentofficials, he was directed to pay penalty and the samehas been the subject matter of appeal before the concerned authorities. Learned counsel has furthercontended that the issue involved in the writ petition ispurely a private dispute between the petitioner and thethird respondent and the rights of the respective partieshave to be adjudicated before the civil court in suit OSNo.542 of 2001 pending before the civil court and not inthe writ proceedings. Admittedly, there is no provision as such in theIncome Tax Act to direct either the first or the secondrespondent to conduct enquiry into the returnssubmitted by the third respondent. The only provisionavailable under the Income Tax Act enabling thepetitioner to secure information about the thirdrespondent seems to be Sec.138, which authorises theofficials, in public interest, to furnish information relatingto any assessee. Clause (b) of Sub-Sec. (1) of Sec.138states that where a person makes an application in theprescribed form, the Chief Commissioner or theCommissioner is authorised to furnish the informationabout the assessee and such a decision of theCommissioner or Chief Commissioner is final and shallnot be called in question in any court of law. In thiscase, it is the petitioner who has sought the enquiry tobe conducted with reference to the returns filed by thethird respondent. Hence we are of the consideredopinion that the application itself is not maintainable and, as such, the contention of the learned counsel forthe petitioner cannot be acceded to. We, however,make it clear that the parties are at liberty to agitate theirrights in the suit filed by the third respondent before theCivil Court. With the above observation, the writ petition failsand is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari June 9, 2010MAS __________________________ Justice Nooty Ramamohana Rao