The Delhi High Court held that providing information about an ongoing investigation to its informer is not only inappropriate but also injurious to ongoing investigation.
The Tax Evasion Petition was addressed to the Principal of Income Tax (Investigation-1) and as a part of the procedure and after following due process, the same was marked to the Dy. Director of Income Tax, Investigation Unit 8(4) under the administrative control of Principal Director of Income Tax (Investigation-2).
The Department thereafter commenced the proceedings as per the Standard Operating Procedure in this regard.
An “Application for calling Status Report” was filed by the Rajiv Yadhuvanshi before the ACMM arraying Principal Director of Income Tax (Inv.-l).
The counsel appearing on behalf of Rajiv Yadhuvanshi accepts notice and submits that the informer filed an application before the court to know the status of the investigation and the petitioner department is duty-bound to comply with the directions passed by learned ACMM.
On the other hand, the petitioner submitted that the impugned orders passed by learned ACMM calling for a status report have been passed without jurisdiction as no provision of the Cr.P.C. gives such power to the learned ACMM. It is a settled principle of law that neither the ACMM nor any Court below, however, only this Court has inherent powers under Cr.P.C. to call for a status report.
The Single Judge Bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait clarified that in cases pertaining to Tax evasion petitions like the present case, this Court also exercises its powers sparingly and it is a well-settled principle that only the broad outcome of the Tax evasion petition may be communicated to the complainant, that too upon culmination of the investigation.
“The Income Tax Department has a specific framework of investigations dealing with the TEPs and information in respect of the investigation carried out by the office of Directorate General of Income Tax (Investigation) is not required to be intimated to the complainant as the said office is even outside the purview of the RTI Act, 2005,” the court while dismissing the pending application said.Subscribe Taxscan AdFree to view the Judgment