HUSSAIN V. THE UNION OF INDIA

WP(C)/1643/2013

AI Insights

The case involves a petitioner, Hussain, whose vehicle was intercepted by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence at Varapuzha toll plaza, leading to the seizure of unaccounted money and documents. Hussain sought copies of the seized documents from the Income Tax Department, which were denied on the grounds that the Directorate is not covered under the RTI Act. The court dismissed the writ petition, affirming the exclusion of the Directorate from the RTI Act and suggesting that the petitioner could seek the documents through provisions under the Income Tax Act.

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 722436 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 21-02-2013
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Right to Information Act, 2005, Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: P K R MENON; JOSE JOSEPH; S JAMAL
• Assessee Lawyers: G SREEKUMAR; K RAVI
• Keywords: Income Tax; RTI Act; Seizure of documents; Unaccounted money; Indiscriminating documents
• Section: 133A; 132(9)

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013/2ND PHALGUNA 1934 WP(C).No. 1643 of 2013 (E) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------- HUSSAIN, AGED 42 YEARS S/O. KUNJUMOIDEEN, CHALINGAT HOUSE, WEST VAZHIYAMBALAM THRISSUR. BY ADVS.SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE UNION OF INDIA REP. BY ITS GOVERNMENT SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT NEW DELHI-110 011 2. THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX HEAD QUARTERS CP 10, MADAPARAMBIL BUILDINGS SOUTH RAILWAY STATION ROAD, KOCHI-682 016 R1 BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, INCOME TAX BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S.JAMAL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-02-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK WP(C).No. 1643 of 2013 (E) ------------------------- APPENDIX --------- PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS ------------------------ EXHIBIT-P1 - A TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 6-11-2012 EXHIBIT-P2 - A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 6-11-2012 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL --------------------- / TRUE COPY / P.A. TO JUDGE VK P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(c) No.1643 OF 2013 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 21st day of February, 2013 JUDGMENT The petitioner, while travelling in a car, was intercepted on 6.03.2012 near Varapuzha toll plaza and some unaccounted money and indiscriminating documents were seized from the vehicle. The petitioner approached the second respondent seeking to provide necessary details of the documents and their copies by filing Ext.P1 application, which was never acceded to and hence the writ petition, seeking for a direction to be given to the second respondent to serve the documents as sought for in Ext.P1. 2. A statement has been filed on behalf of the second respondent pointing out that the second respondent does not come within the purview of RTI Act and hence there is absolutely no merit or bonafides in the writ petition. The pleadings and proceedings clearly reveal that on filing Ext.P5 application, the same was responded by the second respondent, vide Ext.P2 dated 6.11.2012 informing the W.P.(C)No.1643/2013 2 petitioner that the petition filed by the petitioner under the RTI Act is not liable to be entertained as the Income-tax Directorate has been excluded from the ambit of RTI Act 2005. This has been reiterated in the statement filed on behalf of the second respondent. There is no challenge in respect of the assertion made from the part of the second respondent by filing any reply affidavit or such other proceedings. The factual position as narrated in the statement leading to the seizure of documents and the unaccounted money is discernible from paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the statement, which are extracted below : “ The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence authorities of Kochi intercepted one Shri.P.A.Abdul Azeez at Varapuzha, Ernakulam when he was found carrying cash of Rs.50 lakhs, Cheque books and some title deeds etc. while he was travelling from Thrissur to Ernakulam on 06/03/2012. Shri.Abdul Azeez is the Proprietor of M/s. Mughal Jewellers, Trichur. Accordingly requistiion u/s. 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued to the Asst.Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Kochi by the Director of Income Tax ( Inv), Kochi on 06/03/2012 to take over the cash and other documents and it were W.P.(C)No.1643/2013 3 seized by the Income Tax, Investigation Wing, Thrissur. Subsequently a Survey u/s. 133A of the Income Tax Act was conducted by the Investigation Unit, Thrissur at the business premises of M/s.Mughal Jewellers, Thrissur. During the course of Survey, no supporting entry in the books of the concern for drawal of Rs.50 lakhs was found which shows that the above amount was not disclosed to the Income Tax Department by the assessee i.e. Shri.P.A.Abdul Azeez. Hence the case is against Shri.P.A.Abdul Azeez. The other issue is that the petitioner has not sought for any copies of the documents seized. Shri.Hussain has not filed any petition under Right to Information Act (RTI) 2005 in this office. On 05.11.2012 one Shri.e.N.Chandrasekharan, Advocate, Roll K549/90, Malapallipuram Post, Thrissur - 680 732 filed a petition under RTI Act 2005 to the Central Public Information Officer ( CPIO), O/o the Director of Income Tax ( Inv), Kochi, seeking the information about the above mentioned case. He wanted to know that i) how much amount was seized by the DRI & Police, ii) what documents were seized, iii) what are the proceedings initiated in this case and he has also W.P.(C)No.1643/2013 4 asked for the copies of the documents seized. 6. On 06/11/2012, the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the O/o the O/o the Director of Income Tax ( Inv) has replied to him that the information called for cannot be furnished as according to the Notification dated 27/03/2008, amending the Second Schedule of the Right to Information ( RTI) Act, issued by the Ministry of Personal, Public Grievances and Pensions, New Delhi published in the Gazette of India Extra Ordinary, Part-II, Section 3- Sub Section (1), this Directorate has been excluded from the ambit of Right to Information Act, 2005.” 3. The second respondent, while contending that the Directorate does not come within the purview of the RTI Act, has also made it clear in paragraph 10 as to the rights and liberties of the petitioner to file necessary proceedings to have copies and documents in tune with Section 132(9) of the Income Tax Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would like to pursue the matter accordingly. 4. In the said circumstances, this Court finds that there is no merit in the writ petition. The same is dismissed accordingly, without W.P.(C)No.1643/2013 5 prejudice to the rights and liberties of the petitioner to pursue the remedy as provided under the Income Tax Act. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE sv. W.P.(C)No.1643/2013 6 "