C V DAYANANDAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was the proprietor of a jewellery by name "Subhash Jewellery" in Payyannur. THE fifth respondent is also conducting a jewellery business by name "Pavithram" in Payyannur. THEy are first cousins. According to the petitioner, the fifth respondent, who is the proprietor of Pavithram Jewellery was a goldsmith, that he started goldsmith work and had amassed substantial assets by converting black money into white money through his benamis. THE petitioner has filed this original petition seeking for direction to respondents Nos. 2 to 4 to enquire into the assets of the fifth respondent on the basis of the complaints, information and encumbrance certificates exhibits P13 to P16 and take appropriate action against him in accordance with law. It is stated in the original petition that the fifth respondent has got landed properties worth about Rs. 5 crores, that he purchased Panchami jewellery shop in Payyannur town for about Rs. 13 lakhs, that he also purchased a medical shop for about Rs. 2 lakhs and that it is understood that the other assets and earnings of the fifth respondent are partnership in Arathi Textiles at Kozhikode, Pournami Jewellery, etc. According to the petitioner, the fifth respondent earned all these assets without disclosing the source of income or paying income-tax and thereby caused huge loss to the Government. According to the petitioner, he had made so many representations to respondents Nos. 2 to 4 pointing out the said facts, but the respondents have not taken any action against the fifth respondent under the provisions of the Income-tax Act.

(2.) A counter affidavit is filed by the fifth respondent. It is stated therein that the petitioner was also having a jewellery shop by name "Subhash Jewellery" in Payyannur, that he could not make any progress in his business on account of his indifference and his customers lost confidence in him and that he is now devoting most of his time in anti-social activities. It is also stated that the fifth respondent is a regular assessee to income-tax, submitting regular returns of income from the year 1981 onwards and that every year his accounts were being scrutinised by the Income-tax Department and all his savings are fully accounted before the income-tax authorities. It is also stated that the petitioner has been making false complaint against the fifth respondent and his children and are making all sorts of wild, imaginary and baseless allegations, that he has filed as many as nine complaints before the Income-tax Department during the past one decade and that all these complaints were enquired into by the competent authority and the allegations were found to be baseless, frivolous and vexatious.

(3.) SRI M. N. Sukumaran Nair, learned senior counsel appearing for the fifth respondent, submitted that the petitioner had been making representations before various authorities of the Income-tax Department only out of jealousy of the fifth respondent, who is none other than his first cousin. He also submits that the fifth respondent and his children have acquired business and other assets wholly out of their sheer hard work and that the fifth respondent and his children are regular assessees to income-tax. He further submits that the Income-tax Officer has been periodically verifying the books of account and other records in connection with the income-tax assessments of the fifth respondent and his children, that the Department did not find any illegality as alleged by the petitioner and that the original petition has been fifed by the petitioner to wreak vengeance on the fifth respondent and his family.