N K MOHNOT Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition is filed by the writ petitioner under article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a direction directing the respondent herein to forbear from conducting the proceedings in pursuance of his letter Ref. No. C. No. 2093 of 1985-86 TN.V dated August 6, 1985 THE writ petitioner filed an affidavit in support of the writ petition. THE brief contents of the same are as follows : THE petitioner is a registered income-tax practitioner having a lucrative practice. He has been authorised to appear on behalf of the assessees before the various income-tax authorities and the Tribunals. He built up reputation and goodwill. On account of professional prejudice certain vested interests appear to have made false petitions to the officers against him, as a result of which a case has been registered against the petitioner by the C. B. I. in which he was arrested and later released on bail and the matter is pending investigation, Again the Chief Commissioner (Administration) and the Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-V, have also filed a private complaint against the petitioner and the members of his family and certain others before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras, in C. C. No. 179 of 1985 alleging various offences including offences under section 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. THE substance of the allegation in brief is that in conspiracy with others, the petitioner had submitted false returns, in respect of certain assessees and obtained refund orders of income-tax payable to the assessees and also procured the issuance of false tax deduction certificates and thereby committed the offence of conspiracy, cheating, personation, falsification, etc., by filing false returns. THE allegations against the writ petitioner are as follows "Further investigations also disclosed that another return was filed before the Income-tax Officer, Circle-I/(2)/Villupuram, for an alleged firm, Messrs. Hassan and Co. of Tindivanam. THE return described Jayachandran as one of the partners of the said firm and a photostat copy of the duplicate T.D.S. was enclosed with the return. An enquiry by the Department revealed that there was no such firm existing at Tindivanam during this period. Certain records like account books, written by accused-7, A. Ramani, were seized from the residential premises of accused-1, N. K. Mohnot. THE investigation also revealed that there was no partnership as stated in the returns and that the signatures and the records relating to the said firm were forged and that the returns and statements were filed by the accused-1, N. K. Mohnot, through his clerk, Shri N. Mani, accused-6, before the Income-tax Officer at Villupuram. THE first accused, N. K. Mohnot, had represented the firm and has used false documents containing forged signatures to use them in judicial proceedings, viz., before the Income-tax Officer, Villupuram. One more return in the name of P. Jayachandran was filed with the Income-tax Officer, Salary Circle II(4), Madras, on May 20, 1982. THE acknowledgment for having filed the return and the carbon copy of the statement filed along with the return were found in the lockerIn furtherance of the said conspiracy, A. 1 obtained duplicate T.D.S. certificates relating to one, T. M. Subramaniam, an assessee at Ooty. THE assessee, T. M. Subramaniam, won a jackpot on April 21, 1979, at Ooty Race and a T.D.S. with No. 419 for Rs. 6, 936 was issued to him on April 24, 1979, and he has filed the said T.D.S. certificate before the Income-tax Officer, Circle-I(2), Ooty, on April 5, 1980, and obtained a refund order for Rs. 4, 698 on May 13, 1980, through his representative." * THErefore, the writ petition may be allowedTHE arguments of both sides are heardTHE point for consideration is whether there are any valid grounds to allow the writ petition or notI have seen the materials available on record. It is an admitted fact that the criminal case is still pending against the writ petitioner. THErefore, at this stage, I am of the clear opinion that the writ petition is premature and as such it is liable to be dismissedIn the result, the writ petition is dismissed but in the circumstances, without costs.