TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 939X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner is entitled to look into those statements is a flawed submission, especially when, investigation is going on and each individual has given statements. Therefore, acceding to the prayer sought for by the petitioner would definitely hamper the investigation. The survey was conducted in various places and the residences of the other Directors/Employees/Consultant etc., and those persons have not joined the petitioner in seeking such a prayer. That apart, if the prayer sought for is to be considered, it would result in interdicting an investigation process. What the petitioner seeks to indirectly achieved is to injunct a summon, which cannot be done, that too in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The plea of malafides has not been specifically pleaded or established, mere use of the expression is not sufficient. It is evident that till date the investigation is yet to be completed and their statements are yet to be used against any persons much less the company. In the light of the above, this Court is of the view that the prayer sought for cannot be granted for the reasons set out in the preceding paragraphs, as it would amount to interference of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he instance of the respondents 3 and 4, is without jurisdiction and null and void. 4. The Writ Petition was heard for admission on 20.06.2016. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that pursuant to survey, statements were recorded from Directors and Employees of the petitioner company and request has been made for furnishing the copies of those statements and inspite of certain communications emanating from the department, the copies of the statements have not been furnished. 5. The learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondent Department accepted and sought time to get instructions with regard to the supply of the copies of the statements recorded from the Directors/Employees and Chartered Accountants of the petitioner company and the following order was passed:- The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that pursuant to the Survey conducted, certain statements were recorded from the Directors and employees of the petitioner company and a request was made by the Directors to the third respondent to furnish them copies of those statements. The third respondent, by reply dated 24.5.2016, addressed to one of the Directors, stated that in response to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a statement under Section 131 of the Act, in the residence of the Director Mr.CBN Reddy. Thereafter, summons have been issued under Section 131 of the Act, calling upon the said persons to personally attend the camp office, which is the residence of one of the Directors of the petitioner company. 4. The learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that he will obtain instructions from the Department with regard to supply of the copies of the statements recorded from the Directors, employees and Chartered Accountant of the petitioner company. The learned Standing Counsel further submitted that he has got instructions to state that the third respondent and their officers will not visit the residence of the Directors for the purpose of implementing the summons under Section 131 of the Act, till the matter is heard and decided. List the matter on 27.6.2016. 6. When the matter was taken up on 15.07.2015, the learned Additional Solicitor General of India raised a preliminary objection with regard to the request for copies of the statements. It is submitted that the petitioner herein is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, the Director, who has sw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s further submitted that the specific ground raised by the petitioner in ground (A) of the affidavit is that the entire survey is an eyewash and the respondent have not filed any counter affidavit and the Income Tax Department cannot make a roving enquiry in respect of other information. With regard to the contention that even under the RTI Act, information cannot be given, the said submission is not tenable, since on first principle, the petitioner is entitled to the copies, as it is the petitioner's own case. After referring to the replies given by the Department, dated 24.05.2016 and 08.06.2016, it is submitted that the fourth respondent has conveniently omitted to refer to the request made by the petitioner for giving the copies of the statements. Further, it is submitted that one of the Directors by name, S.Baskararaman, has also made a request to the Department to give the copy of the statement and as many as 100 questions were asked to him and no reasonable person can be expected to remember all the answers given to those 100 questions. Therefore, it is contended that non-furnishing of the statements would be in violation of the principles of natural justice. Further, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ements is a flawed submission, especially when, investigation is going on and each individual has given statements. Therefore, acceding to the prayer sought for by the petitioner would definitely hamper the investigation. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has sought for a larger relief wherein they seek for quashing the entire survey which commenced in December 2015. The survey was conducted in various places and the residences of the other Directors/Employees/Consultant etc., and those persons have not joined the petitioner in seeking such a prayer. That apart, if the prayer sought for is to be considered, it would result in interdicting an investigation process. What the petitioner seeks to indirectly achieved is to injunct a summon, which cannot be done, that too in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The plea of malafides has not been specifically pleaded or established, mere use of the expression is not sufficient. 11. Further, the fourth respondent has not foreclosed the petitioner's request and by communication dated 08.06.2016, a reply has been sent to the Principal Officer of the petitioner compan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
