Back
2021 Supreme(Del) 1110
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manmohan, Navin Chawla, JJ.
Three C Homes Pvt. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax - Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 5912 of 2021
Decided On : 16-07-2021
Rishabh Jain, Advocate, Sunil Agarwal, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's duty to ensure the integrity of evidence and to protect citizens from unfounded allegations.
Headnote:
Email Communication - Disputed Email Communication - Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 142(1), Section 143(3) - The court discussed the authenticity of an email communication dated 31st May, 2021, which was the basis for filing the writ petition. The court directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to inquire into the source of the email and stated that action would be initiated based on the findings.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged an assessment order dated 01st June 2021, citing an email communication dated 31st May, 2021, as the basis for seeking an adjournment. The respondent disputed the authenticity of the email and alleged that the petitioner had approached the court with unclean hands.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the authenticity of the disputed email communication was a serious issue and directed the CBI to conduct an inquiry into its source. The court also criticized the respondent for not conducting the inquiry before making serious allegations.
Issues: The authenticity of the disputed email communication and the conduct of the parties were the key issues before the court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the need to ascertain the truth regarding the disputed email communication and to ensure that citizens invoking the court's jurisdiction are not intimidated by unfounded allegations.
Final Decision: The court directed the CBI to investigate the source of the disputed email communication and stated that action would be initiated based on the findings. The Assessing Officer was also restrained from taking coercive action against the petitioner until further orders.
JUDGMENT
Manmohan, J. - The hearing has been conducted through video conferencing.
2. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the assessment order dated 01st June 2021. Petitioner has also sought sufficient time in future to file a reply after considering the lockdown position in U.P. and NCT of Delhi as well as the fact that the Petitioner-Company is represented by a Resolution Professional who is an independent professional and is dependent upon the past employees of the Petitioner-Company to file its response.
3. On the first date of hearing, i.e. 11th June, 2021, learned counsel for the Petitioner had stated that the Petitioner on 31st May 2021 at around 02:00 p.m. had asked for an adjournment and extension of time to submit his reply citing the reason that the Resolution Professional of the Petitioner was unable to access the records of the Petitioner-Company due to various lockdown restrictions imposed by the State of Uttar Pradesh.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner had stated that on the same day i.e. 31st May 2021 at around 04:00 p.m., the Respondent had granted an adjournment by way of an email (Annexure P-4) till 14th June 2021. He had, however, stated that on 02nd June 2021 the petitioner received impugned Assessment Order dated 01st June 2021. The said email dated 31st May, 2021 at Annexure P-4 is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"DONOTREPLY@incometaxindiaefiling. gov.in
DONOTREPL Y@incometaxindiaefiling. gov. in
To: 3chomes.cirp@gmail .com
Dear Taxpayer,
Greetings from Income-tax department.
Response due date for submission to notice 142(1) is extended up to null
\? Your taxes build a Nation\?
Income-tax department"
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner had emphasised that the assessment order was bad in law because on 31st May 2021, the adjournment sought by the Resolution Professional of the petitioner company had been granted and the matter had been adjourned for 14th June 2021. He had stated that after granting the adjournment there was no occasion for the Respondent to pass the impugned Assessment Order dated 01st June 2021.
6. However, on the first date of hearing i.e. 11th June, 2021, learned counsel for respondent had vehemently opposed the petition by contending that the petitioner had approached this Court with unclean hands. He had stated that the alleged email dated 31st
7. In view of the serious objection raised by the respondent regarding the authenticity of the email dated 31 May, 2021 (Annexure P-4), which was the basis for filing the writ petition had not originated from the office of the respondent and therefore, had prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. st May, 2021 (Annexure P-4), the petitioner was granted two weeks' time to file an affidavit under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. The relevant portion of the said order dated 11th June, 2021 is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"5. On the other hand, Mr. Sunil Aggarwal, who appears on behalf of the respondents on advance notice, vehemently opposes the petition by contending that the petitioner has approached this Court with unclean hands. He submits that the alleged communication dated 31st May, 2021 ("Annexure P-4" to the present petition) which is the basis for filing of the present petition, has not originated from the office of the respondent and therefore, prays that the writ petition be dismissed on this ground alone.
6. In view of the serious objection raised by the respondent regarding the authenticity of the document annexed as "Annexure P-4", the petitioner is granted two weeks' time to file an additional affidavit clearly stating the source of this communication, along with an appropriate affidavit under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act."
8. In pursuance to the aforesaid order, the petitioner had filed an affidavit under Section 65B of the Evidence Act.
9. Subsequently, in the counter-affidavit dated 10th July, 2021, the authenticity of the email/communication dated 31st May, 2021 (Annexure P4) was once again seriously disputed. It was reiterated t
