9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1968X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... conducted by the 3rd respondent. 2. Heard Mr. M. Janardan Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, the Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the 1st respondent, Mr. J.V. Prasad, learned senior standing counsel for the Income Tax Department, appearing for the 2nd respondent, Mr. P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel, appearing for the 3rd respondent, and Mr. P. Vishnuvardan Reddy, learned counsel, appearing for the unofficial respondents. 3. This is at least the second round of litigation that the very Bench has come across from the very same petitioner against the very same respondents. In W.P.Nos.11301, 13295, 13138 and 13159 of 2016, disposed of on 19.07.2016 by a Bench of this Court to which one of us (VRS, J) was a party, this Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erments made in the writ affidavit in so far as they relate to these respondents, it is submitted that the complaint filed by the petitioner is in the form of Tax Evasion Petition which is being dealt with as per the procedure for dealing with such petitions by the Department. The Tax Evasion Petition filed by the petitioner was received from the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) in the month of May 2016 and the same is under the process of confidential investigation which cannot be divulged at any point of time to the petitioner during its progress. It is therefore respectfully submitted that the petition filed by the petitioner is under active consideration and investigation and will be followed to its logical conclusion and hence the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioner. Even an enemy, could provide the trigger point for an investigation. If a mandamus is sought from a Court, the Court would certainly reject a prayer of this nature made by a person, who camouflages a private cause under the garb of a public cause. But once the official respondents have taken cognizance and initiated some action, the same cannot be prevented even if we condemn the action of the writ petitioners. Therefore, we do not wish to get into the details of the litigation as between the petitioner and the contesting respondents. In view of the statement made on oath by the Principal Director of Income Tax (Investigation), no orders are necessary in these writ petitions. We make it clear that there is no obligation on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
