MALAY SHRIVASTAVA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner herein principally seeking the relief of supply of documents to the petitioner as demanded vide letter dated 9.5.2016 five documents laid down at page No.11 and 12 of the writ petition. The said documents were requested from respondent No.6 who was the Assessing Officer, assessing the Income Tax Return of the petitioner for the financial year 2008 -09. As stated, those documents are required by the petitioner in order to prepare and file his reply before the Assessing Officer, who gave the notice to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax on 27.3.2014 seeking re -assessment of the return filed by him for the financial year 2008 -09. The re -assessment was proposed, as the respondent No.5 believed that the petitioner's income for the assessment year 2009 -10 had escaped assessment due to the reasons found in the raid conducted at the premises of one Mukesh Sharma who was allegedly working as a liaison agent to M/s. Nagarjuna Construction Company, Hyderabad and M/s. Simplex Infrastructure Limited, Kolkata, to whom contracts were awarded and it was believed that illegal gratification was received by the petitioner, who at the material point of time was posted as Commissioner in the Department of Urban Administration and Development, which according to respondent No.5, was in a position to influence the outcome of the Award of these contracts to the above mentioned two Companies. According to respondent No.5, the belief was based on a noting of the alphabet "C" on loose papers which was seized from one Mukesh Sharma which, according to respondent No.5, denoted "Commissioner, Department of Urban Administration and Development".

(2.) Aggrieved by the said notice of 27.3.2014 issued by respondent No.5, the petitioner preferred Writ Petition No.4046/15 before this Court. By the said petition, the petitioner prayed for quashment of the re -assessment proceeding U/s.148 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The petitioner contented that the entire proceeding, which was initiated on the basis of noting of alphabet "C", on the loose papers seized from Mukesh Sharma was inadequate to constitute "reason to believe as the same only raised a suspicion, and the surmise of the officer cannot be a ground for holding the same as "reason to believe". For the Department, it was contended that as assessment proceeding were in progress and the same ought not to be stymied by this Court exercising its plenary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, when only the return filed by the petitioner was being scrutinized. This Court vide order dated 21.4.2016 dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner holding that the stage was not appropriate for this Court to interfere with the assessment proceedings and instead, the petitioner should appear before the assessing officer and raise all his objections before the Assessing Officer who would then take a decision in accordance with law. Any grievance borne by the petitioner thereafter could be challenge in accordance with law.

(3.) After the dismissal of the above said writ petition, the petitioner vide letter dated 9.5.2016 represented before the Assessing Officer the requirement of certain documents being (a) statement of Mukesh Sharma, recorded U/s.132(4)/131(1) of I.T. Act in connection with search and seizure operations at his premises on 21.7.2008, which have been relied upon by the department to believe that the entry against "C" in the loose documents refer to the petitioner on the basis of which the department believes that the petitioner received an illegal gratification to the tune of Rs.2.21 Crores during financial year 2008 -09, (b) Statement of one A.G.K. Raju, Executive Director, Nagarjuna Construction Co., Ltd., Hyderabad recorded U/s.132(4) of I.T. Act before the DDIT(Inv.) Hyderabad. (c) Statement, if any, of the representative of M/s. Simplex Infrastructure Ltd., regarding payment of illegal gratification to the assesse as referred to in the recorded reasons. (d) Such other documents if any based on which respondents have reasons to believe that illegal gratification was being paid to the assesse during financial year 2009 - 10. (e) Assessment orders of Mr. Mukesh Sharma, M/s. Nagarjuna Construction Ltd., for assessment year 2009 -10.