Delhi High Court
Present petition has been filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking setting aside the order dated 24.09.2020, 05.10.2020, 21.10.2020 & 28.10.2020 passed by learned ACMM (Spl. Acts), Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Misc. Crl. 102/2020 titled as “Rajiv Yaduvanshi vs. Principal Director, Income Tax (Investigation-I) & Ors.”.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 06.11.2020
PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR, INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION-2) ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Zoheb Hussain, Adv.
RAJIV YADUVANSHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Arun Khatri, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
The hearing has been conducted through video conferencing.
Crl. M.A. 15279/2020 (Exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Application is disposed of.
Crl.M.C. 2140/2020 & Crl.M.A. 15278/2020
3. Present petition has been filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking setting aside the order dated 24.09.2020, 05.10.2020, 21.10.2020 & 28.10.2020 passed by learned ACMM (Spl. Acts), Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Misc. Crl. 102/2020 titled as “Rajiv Yaduvanshi vs. Principal Director, Income Tax (Investigation-I) & Ors.”.
4. The fact of the case are that on 20.07.2020, investigation unit of the Income Tax Department received a Tax Evasion Petition filed by Rajiv Yadhuvanshi (Respondent No.1) against Vandana Sodhi and Sandeep Sumbly (Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 respectively). On 27.07.2020, the above-mentioned TEP 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) on 27.07.2020 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. On 23.09.2020, an "Application for calling Status Report" was filed by the Respondent no.1 before the Ld. ACMM arraying Principal Director of Income Tax (Inv.-l) as a Respondent along with Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein with the following prayer:
"It is therefore most respectfully prayed that a status report regarding the status of complaint of Applicant and investigation, if any, carried out on complaint of Applicant be called, in the interest of justice."
5. The above-mentioned application filed by the Respondent No. 1 was registered as Misc. Crl. 102/2020 and listed before the Ld. ACMM and the following ex-parte order was passed:
"This application for calling status report has been uploaded on the email id of the court by Ld. counsel for applicant. Reader of the Court is directed to download the aforesaid application and place its copy on record. The present application be checked and registered as miscellaneous application.
Submissions heard. Application perused.
Considering the reasons mentioned in the application and the submissions made, the Action Taken Report be called electronically from Principal Director, Income Tax (Investigation-1) through Sh. Kanhaiya Singhal, Ld. SPP for Income Tax Department for the next date of hearing..."
6. On 05.10.2020, the said application was again listed before the Ld. ACMM and it was directed that a status report be filed. Thereafter, on 21.10.2020, the said application was again listed before the Ld. ACMM and time was sought on behalf of the petitioner as the concerned PDIT had been transferred. On 28.10.2020, the said application was again listed before the Ld. ACMM and the following order was passed:
"It is submitted by the SPP for the complainant department that time had been sought on last dates for filing status report as previous PDIT had initiated the process for filing the same. He further stated that the said CRL.M.C.2140/2020 Page 4 of 10
PDIT has been transferred and new incumbent PDIT has instructed him that no Court order has been officially received by him and the reply qua the said application if any, need not be filed as the present application is not maintainable.
Ld. Counsel for applicant submitted that contempt proceedings should be initiated against the incumbent PDIT as he is deliberately disobeying the directions of the court under the garb of non-availability of order. He further stated that necessary summary proceedings for contempt as per Cr.P.C. and penal proceedings as per IPC for deliberate disobedience of the orders of the court be initiated against the incumbent PDIT who either does not know the law of the land or considers him to be above the law of the land.
To know more in details find the attachment file