2021 (8) TMI 199 - HC - Income Tax

Validity of assessment - adjournment and extension of time to submit to reply - citing the reason for delay that the Resolution Professional of the Petitioner was unable to access the records of the Petitioner-Company due to various lockdown restrictions imposed by the State of Uttar Pradesh - Petitioner had stated that the Petitioner on 31st May 2021 at around 02 00 p.m. had asked for an adjournment and extension of time to submit his reply and on the same day at around 04 00 p.m., the Respondent had granted an adjournment by way of an email - respodent opposed the petition by contending that the petitioner had approached this Court with unclean hands and the alleged email dated 31st May, 2021 which was the basis for filing the writ petition had not originated from the office of the respondent and therefore, had prayed that the writ petition be dismissed - HELD THAT - This matter is serious in nature as one of the parties has either forged the document in question and/or is not telling a complete truth. The respondent s (DCIT, CC-06) offer to now ascertain source of the email from the Directorate of Systems, who is having control over all income tax systems is too late in the day. Any reasonable official would have conducted the said enquiry before filing his counter affidavit and before making a serious allegation of perjury and forgery, even if prima facie, against the deponent of the writ petition. Consequently, in the opinion of this Court, the said offer of DCIT, CC-06 lacks bonafides. As the allegation pertains to a sensitive server belonging to the Ministry of Finance/Department of Income Tax and involves a senior official of the Income Tax Department holding a sensitive post, this Court directs the Central agency, namely Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to enquire as to whether the email dated 31st May, 2021 (Annexure P-4) had been issued to the petitioner or not, and if so, by whom. The CBI shall file its enquiry report with this Court within four weeks. The Deponent of the writ petition and the counter affidavit are also directed to cooperate with the officials of the CBI. Registry is also directed to forward a copy of this order along with the entire paper book to the Director, CBI, on or before 20th July, 2021, who in turn, is directed to nominate an officer to conduct the enquiry. This Court clarifies that in the event it is found that the email dated 31st May, 2021 (Annexure P-4) had been forged and fabricated by the petitioner it would initiate action under Sections 191/192/196 of the IPC. However, if it is found that the email dated 31st May, 2021 (Annexure P-4) had been issued by the Income Tax of India s e-filing portal, then it would not hesitate to take action against the Deponent of the counter affidavit for stating half-truths , namely, that the email dated 31st May, 2021 (Annexure P-4) had not been generated by the respondent, as from the order dated 11th June, 2021 and the averment made in the counter affidavit, this Court has no doubt that the inarticulate submission of the respondent is that the email dated 31st May, 2021 (Annexure P-4) has been forged and fabricated by the petitioner. This Court may mention that it is constitutionally bound to ensure that citizens of this country who invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court are not intimidated by allegations of forgery and prosecution and that too by officials who do not exercise the duty of care by enquiring as to whether the email had been issued by another wing or Department of Revenue. List on 06th September, 2021.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Challenge to the assessment order dated 01st June 2021.
2. Request for adjournment and extension of time to file a reply.
3. Authenticity of the email dated 31st May 2021 (Annexure P-4).
4. Allegations of forgery and fabrication of evidence.
5. Inquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Challenge to the assessment order dated 01st June 2021:
The petitioner challenged the assessment order dated 01st June 2021, arguing that it was issued despite an adjournment being granted until 14th June 2021. The petitioner claimed that the adjournment was necessary due to the inability of the Resolution Professional to access company records because of lockdown restrictions.

2. Request for adjournment and extension of time to file a reply:
On 31st May 2021, the petitioner requested an adjournment, which was allegedly granted until 14th June 2021. However, the assessment order was issued on 01st June 2021. The petitioner argued that the issuance of the assessment order was inappropriate given the granted adjournment.

3. Authenticity of the email dated 31st May 2021 (Annexure P-4):
The respondent disputed the authenticity of the email dated 31st May 2021, which purportedly granted the adjournment. The respondent claimed that this email did not originate from their office and requested the court to dismiss the petition based on this ground.

4. Allegations of forgery and fabrication of evidence:
The respondent alleged that the petitioner had approached the court with unclean hands by submitting a forged email. The counter-affidavit suggested that the petitioner might have committed penal offenses under Sections 191, 192, and 196 of the IPC, which pertain to giving false evidence, fabricating false evidence, and using evidence known to be false.

5. Inquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI):
Given the serious nature of the allegations, the court directed the CBI to investigate whether the email dated 31st May 2021 was issued by the Income Tax Department and to determine its authenticity. The court emphasized the need for a thorough inquiry due to the involvement of a sensitive server and a senior official of the Income Tax Department. The CBI was instructed to file its report within four weeks, and the involved parties were directed to cooperate with the investigation.

Additional Observations:
- The court noted that the respondent's offer to ascertain the source of the email from the Directorate of Systems was belated and lacked bona fides.
- The court highlighted the importance of ensuring that citizens invoking the court's extraordinary jurisdiction are not intimidated by allegations of forgery and prosecution without proper inquiry.
- The court clarified that if the email was found to be forged by the petitioner, it would initiate action under relevant IPC sections. Conversely, if the email was issued by the Income Tax e-filing portal, action would be taken against the deponent of the counter-affidavit for stating half-truths.

Interim Order:
The court ordered that no coercive action should be taken against the petitioner by the Assessing Officer until further orders. The case was scheduled for the next hearing on 06th September 2021. The order was to be uploaded on the website and forwarded to the counsel via email.