9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 276X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exercises its powers sparingly and it is a well-settled principle that only the broad outcome of the Tax evasion petition may be communicated to the complainant, that too upon culmination of the investigation. The Income Tax Department has a specific framework of investigations dealing with the TEPs and information in respect of the investigation carried out by the office of Directorate General of Income Tax (Investigation) is not required to be intimated to the complainant as the said office is even outside the purview of the RTI Act, 2005. Providing information regarding an ongoing investigation to its informer is not only inappropriate, but also injurious to the ongoing investigation. Without observing much in the present petition, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s marked to the Dy. Director of Income Tax, Investigation Unit 8(4) on 27.07.2020 under the administrative control of Principal Director of Income Tax (Investigation-2). The Department thereafter commenced the proceedings as per the Standard Operating Procedure in this regard. On 23.09.2020, an Application for calling Status Report was filed by the Respondent no.1 before the Ld. ACMM arraying Principal Director of Income Tax (Inv.-l) as a Respondent along with Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein with the following prayer: It is therefore most respectfully prayed that a status report regarding the status of complaint of Applicant and investigation, if any, carried out on complaint of Applicant be called, in the interest of justice. 5. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has instructed him that no Court order has been officially received by him and the reply qua the said application if any, need not be filed as the present application is not maintainable. Ld. Counsel for applicant submitted that contempt proceedings should be initiated against the incumbent PDIT as he is deliberately disobeying the directions of the court under the garb of non-availability of order. He further stated that necessary summary proceedings for contempt as per Cr.P.C. and penal proceedings as per IPC for deliberate disobedience of the orders of the court be initiated against the incumbent PDIT who either does not know the law of the land or considers him to be above the law of the land. Heard. Perused. The conduct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .P.C. 10. To strengthen his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the case of Syed Nusrat Ali vs. State and Ors. in Crl.M.C. 2899 of 2009, wherein it has been held as under: 4...It is well settled that neither ACMM nor any Court below the High Court has inherent powers under Cr.P.C. The inherent powers under Criminal law are vested only in High Court. All courts below High Court can exercise statutory powers only in accordance with Cr.P.C. When a Court of ACMM or a Court of learned ASJ issues show cause notice to any person, it must be in accordance with the provisions of Cr.P.C. Surprisingly, the learned ACMM has not even mentioned as to under which provisions of law, he had the authority or powers to is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not have inherent power under Cr.P.C. 14. From a perusal of the case history, it is seen that the said application has been filed under Section 51 of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Rules Act, 2015 and the Ld. ACMM has not considered Section 55 of the said Act which provides as under: [ Prosecution to be at instance of Principal Commissioner or Principal Director General or Commissioner or Director General or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner .'] 55. (1) A person shall not be proceeded against for an offence under section 49 to section 53 (both inclusive) except with the sanction of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner or the Commissioner (Appeals), as the case may be. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Providing information regarding an ongoing investigation to its informer is not only inappropriate, but also injurious to the ongoing investigation. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Central Information Commission in the case of S.K. Agarwalla v. Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence: [2008] SCC OnLine 1781, wherein the appellant therein vide an RTI application requested information relating to the progress of the case under investigation. It was held as under: ..although speedy investigations in matters of revenue-evasion is salutary goal, it would be inappropriate and even injurious, to ongoing investigations if informers are allowed to intrude into the investigative progress all in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
