9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 939X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the visit of the 2nd and 3rd respondents to the residences of the Directors of the petitioner on 15.06.2016 to issue summons under Section 131 of the Income Tax Act and take evidence as illegal, malafide, abuse of powers, ultra vires the Income Tax Act, and without jurisdiction. 3. In the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition more particularly in the grounds, the petitioner would contend that the object of the survey and summons proceedings is not bonafide; refusal to give copies of the sworn statements made by the Directors and Consultant of the petitioner amounts to violation of principles of natural justice; the visit of the third and fourth respondents to the residences of the Directors of the petitioner to serve summons and take evidence under Section 131 of the Act is without authority of law; that the respondents 3 and 4 are not the Assessing Officer of the Directors and Consultant of the petitioner and that there is no assessment proceedings of the Directors and Consultant of the petitioner pending before the third and fourth respondents and issuance of repeated summons under Section 131 of the Income Tax Act on the Directors and Consultant of the petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d set, it appears that the petitioner as well as the persons, from whom statements were recorded, have made requests for supply of copies of the statements recorded from them. From the communication dated 24.05.2016, it appears that the third respondent had not specifically dealt with the request made by the Director to furnish copy of the sworn statement nor there is any specific refusal to furnish the same. By communication dated 08.06.2016, addressed to the petitioner's company, the third respondent has stated that the sworn statement of the Directors as well as the employees of the petitioner company taken during the course of survey proceedings will be provided as and when it is proposed to be used as evidence against the company or its Directors or its employees. Further, the petitioner was informed that to obtain the copies of the impound document, the petitioner must make a payment of Rs. 1000/-, to the Government account and furnish challan to the office of the third respondent after which copies will be made available to the petitioner. One of the Directors Mr.C.B.N.Reddy, was also informed on the same lines by letter dated 08.06.2016. Subsequently summons have been i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nnot be acceded to. Further, it is submitted that in taxation matters, the Courts will be slow to interfere and the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be invoked. In support of such contention, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon'ble First Bench of this Court in the case of Dr.K.Nedunchezhian vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle, Salem reported in (2005)-2 MLJ-243. It is further submitted that even under the Right to Information Act in terms of Section 8(h), information which would impede the process of investigation, cannot be furnished. Further, in terms of the second schedule to the Right to Information Act, the provisions of the said Act, would not apply to the Directorate General of Income Tax (Investigation). 7. While answering the preliminary objection, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the investigation commenced by the department is against individuals, who are connected with the company, all notices which have been issued by the respondents 3 and 4 contain the same file number and the person, who is targeted, is the company and the petitioner therefore, sought for copies of the statements by le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , is as follows:- Name Date of Statements R.Balachandran 01st December 2015 Vishakh Rao 01st December 2015 S.Mohan 01st December 2015 M.Rajesh 01st December 2015 C.B.N.Reddy 15th December 2015 S.Bhaskararaman 15th December 2015 04th May 2016 9. It is not in dispute that none of the persons, who have given statements as mentioned above, have approached this Court for furnishing the copies of the statements. The petitioner, the company represented by one of its Directors, who has not given a statements, now seeks for copies of the statements given by the other persons. In such factual scenario, the petitioner has no vested right at this juncture to insist upon copies of such statements. The plea that all those individuals are connected with the company and the company is being targeted, is hardly a ground to accede to the prayer made by the petitioner. Further, the plea that even if the other persons, who have given the statements, are not entitled to look into the statements given by others, but the petitioner is entitled to look into those statements is a flawed submission, especially when, investigation is going on and each individual has given statements. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
