Wp/3187/2020 Of Sri Naval Kishore Khaitan v. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Aayakar Bhavan

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO WRIT PETITION No.3187 of 2020 ORDER:(per the Hon’ble Sri Justice A.V. Sesha Sai) 1. Earlier, when a notice, under Section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IT Act’) was issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Assistant Commissioner’) on the ground that the income chargeable to tax for the assessment year 2012-13 had escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the IT Act, the petitioner herein approached this Court by way of filing W.P.No.17952 of 2019. The said Writ Petition came to be dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 24.12.2019. 2. Obviously, in furtherance of the said notice under Section 148 of the IT Act, the Assistant Commissioner issued the impugned summons to the assessee under Section 131 of the IT Act, on 31.01.2020, asking the assessee to be present on 07.02.2020 at 2.30 p.m., to give evidence and to produce personally the books of accounts or other documents specified therein and not to depart until he grants permission to do so. 3. The sum and substance of the grievance of the petitioner, as advocated by the learned counsel, is that the action of the Assistant Commissioner directing the petitioner herein/assessee not to depart until he grants permission to do so, is a patent violation of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Part-III of the Constitution of India. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that Section 131 of the IT Act does not enable the Assistant Commissioner to issue such directions. 4. A perusal of the impugned summons shows that apart from asking the assessee to be present on a particular day, the Assistant Commissioner also directed the assessee not to depart from the premises till he grants permission to do so. 5. In the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned summons to the extent of asking the assessee to be present for unlimited period till the time he obtains permission from the Assistant Commissioner, is highly unreasonable. Though there is no infirmity in asking the petitioner to be present for enquiry, this Court does not find any justification on the part of the Assistant Commissioner in asking the assessee to be present for unlimited period. Keeping in view the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for respondents, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the petitioner herein to co-operate with the enquiry initiated by the Assistant Commissioner and be present before the officer concerned on the day on which the officer asks the assessee to be present, till 7.00 p.m., or any other time earlier thereto specified by the officer concerned. 6. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs of the Writ Petition. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any in the Writ Petition, shall stand closed. __________________ A.V.SESHA SAI, J 12.02.2020 MP _________________________ R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J