HC directs CBI to enquire into the authenticity of the email which is allegedly sent by the Income Tax Department

  

On 16^th July, a bench of Delhi High Court consisting of Justics Manmohan and Navin Chawla while hearing a suit determining the authenticity of an email of adjournment and extension by the Income Tax Department, directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to enquire as to whether the email had been issued to the petitioner or not, and if so, by whom. The CBI was asked to file its enquiry report with the Court within four weeks.

The court further held 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.

Facts of the case:

The Present writ petition has been filed challenging the assessment order dated 01st June 2021. Petitioner has also sought sufficient time in future to file a reply after considering the lockdown position in U.P. and NCT of Delhi as well as the fact that the Petitioner-Company is represented by a Resolution Professional who is an independent professional and is dependent upon the past employees of the Petitioner-Company to file its response.

Contention of the petitioner:

 

Learned counsel for the petitioner had stated the following contention:

1. It  was submitted that the petitioner on 31 May 2021 at around 02:00 p.m. had asked for an adjournment and extension of time to submit his reply citing the reason 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.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner had stated that on the same day at around 04:00 p.m., the Respondent had granted an adjournment by way of an email till 14th June 2021.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner had emphasised that the assessment order was bad in law because on 31st May 2021, the adjournment sought by the Resolution Professional of the petitioner company had been granted and the matter had been adjourned for 14th June 2021.

Contention of the Respondent:

Learned counsel for respondent had vehemently opposed the petition by contending the following:

 

1. It was submitted that the petitioner had approached this Court with unclean hands. He had stated that the alleged email dated 31^st 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.
2. It was also submitted that all communications from the Respondent to the Petitioner originated from following e-mail id, which is the official e-mail id of the Respondent:

delhi.dcit.cen6@incometax.gov.in

However, as per the records of Respondent, the email address provided by the Petitioner to the Respondent for communication with the Petitioner is as follows:

 tax@lotusgreens.in

Observation and judgement of the court:

1. The Court was of the view that the matter was  serious in nature as one of the parties has either forged the document in question and/or is not telling a complete truth.
2. The Court clarified that in the event it is found that the email dated 31 July, 2021had been forged and fabricated by the petitioner it would initiate action under Sections 191/192/196 of the IPC.

In the view of the above the Court directed the Central agency, namely Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to enquire as to whether the email dated 31st May, 2021 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.

It was also held that the court 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.

 Read Judgment ;

 

 

source ;  latestlaws.com

Social media is bold. 

Social media is young.

Social media raises questions.

 Social media is not satisfied with an answer.

Social media looks at the big picture.

 Social media is interested in every detail.

social media is curious.

 Social media is free.

Social media is irreplaceable.

But never irrelevant.

Social media is you.

(With input from news agency language)

 If you like this story, share it with a friend!  

We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure.