Rahul Gupta V. Income Tax Department and Station House Officer Mahila Thana, Ambikapur and Station House Officer Thana Telibandha

WPC/3084/2025

AI Insights

Rahul Gupta filed a writ petition against the Income Tax Department and local police authorities, seeking a judicial mandate for a thorough investigation into alleged tax evasion and related crimes by several individuals, including Rajendra Mittal and others. Gupta argued that the Income Tax Department had not acted on his previous complaints and that their inaction caused him harassment and expenses, prompting his approach to the court. The court, however, dismissed the petition, citing the rejection of Gupta's tax evasion petition by the Income Tax Department due to it being barred by limitation, as per amendments in the Income Tax Act, 1961.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 828188 (HC-CHHATTISGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 07-01-2026
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, Wealth Tax Act, 1957, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: AJAY KUMRANI; SABYASACHI CHOUBEY
• Assessee Lawyers: RAHUL GUPTA
• Keywords: Dereliction of Duty; Income concealment; Investigation; Limitation; Prosecution; Tax Evasion; Writ of Mandamus; Wealth Concealment
• Section: 420; 498

Judgement Text

"1 2026:CGHC:999 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3084 of 2025 • Rahul Gupta S/o Pawan Kumar Gupta Aged About 42 Years R/o M - 20, Sector - 1, Avanti Vihar, Raipur- 492001 (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Income Tax Department Through Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhavan, Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Station House Officer Mahila Thana, Ambikapur District Surguja- 497001 3 - Station House Officer Thana Telibandha, Telibandha, Raipur- 492001 ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Gupta, Petitioner in Person appeared through Video Conferencing For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Advocate For State : Mr. Sabyasachi Choubey, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 07.01.2026 1. The petitioner in person has filed this petition praying for the following reliefs:- \" 10.1 Issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, compelling Respondent No. 1 (Income Tax Department) to forthwith initiate and conduct a thorough, effective, and time-bound investigation into the detailed allegations of tax evasion, concealment of income/wealth, and abetment thereof against Rajendra Mittal, Sulochana Mittal, Printed from counselvise.com BHUMIKA ANGARE Digitally signed by BHUMIKA ANGARE Date: 2026.01.13 16:50:26 +0530 2 Mukesh Kumar Mittal, Laxmi Mittal (the Alleged Evaders), and Ajay Agrawal, CA Vishal Agrawal (the Alleged Abettors). This investigation should be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the erstwhile Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (for the relevant period), and all other applicable laws, giving due consideration to the Tax Evasion Petition (Annexure P-3), supplementary information (Annexure P-4), the unequivocal admissions (Annexures P-1 and P-2), and all other relevant materials, including those detailed in the Grounds of this petition; 10.2 Issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, directing Respondent No. 1 to complete the aforesaid investigation within a stipulated period, preferably not exceeding six months from the date of this Hon'ble Court's order, or such other period as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper; 10.3 Issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, directing Respondent No. 1 to take all necessary and consequential enforcement actions based on the findings of the investigation. Such actions should include, but not be limited to, making assessments/reassessments of income and wealth, raising demands for unpaid taxes with applicable interest, imposing penalties under Chapter XXI of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (and corresponding provisions of the erstwhile Wealth Tax Act, 1957, where applicable), and initiating prosecution proceedings under Chapter XXII of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (and corresponding provisions of the erstwhile Wealth Tax Act, 1957, where applicable) against all persons found to be liable; 10.4 Issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, compelling Respondent No. 1 to share all findings, outcomes, and relevant evidence gathered during its investigation pertaining to potential criminal offences (including but not limited to fraud, cheating, criminal breach of trust, money laundering, benami transactions, and offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860) with Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 (Police authorities of Chhattisgarh), the concerned District Magistrate, Ambikapur and Raipur, and other relevant law enforcement and Printed from counselvise.com 3 investigative agencies (such as the Enforcement Directorate, Serious Fraud Investigation Office, etc.) for appropriate, independent investigation and action under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, or any other applicable laws; 10.5 Issue appropriate directives to Respondent No. 1 to fairly, transparently, and expeditiously consider and process the Petitioner's claim for reward for furnishing credible information leading to the detection of tax evasion and recovery of taxes, in accordance with the extant informant reward schemes and guidelines issued by the CBDT/Ministry of Finance under the Income Tax Act, 1961, upon the successful detection/assessment/recovery of taxes based on the information provided by the Petitioner; 10.6 Issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, compelling Respondent No. 1 to furnish a comprehensive compliance report before this Hon'ble Court within 30 days of the completion of the stipulated investigation period (as per prayer 10.2 above). This report should detail the outcome of the investigation, particulars of tax demands raised/recovered, penalties imposed, prosecution initiated (with case numbers, if any), information shared with other agencies, and the status of the Petitioner's informant reward claim; 10.7 Issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, directing the Respondents, particularly Respondent No. 1, to pay adequate compensation to the Petitioner for the harassment, mental agony, and expenses incurred due to their unreasonable and prolonged inaction and dereliction of statutory duties, which has compelled the Petitioner to approach this Hon'ble Court for the enforcement of law in the public interest; 2. The petitioner in person would inform that a complaint has been registered against him for offences under Section 498 & 420 of the Indian Penal Code by his wife. He would further submit that he has Printed from counselvise.com 4 preferred a petition bearing Cr.M.P No. 1111 of 2023 wherein he has challenged the charges levelled against him and the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.07.2024 has partially allowed the said petition by quashing FIR registered against petitioner's parents but continued the prosecution against the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 would submit that the petitioner has filed Tax Evasion Petition before the Income Tax Department and the same has rightly been rejected on 22.08.2025 on the count that it is barred by limitation as per amendment made in the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 5. Considering the facts of the case and relief sought by the petitioner, I am of the view that no Writ of Mandamus can be issued to the respondents at this stage, accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed. 6. However, the petitioner is at liberty to take all his defense by filing an appropriate application before the concerned trial Court where criminal case is pending against him. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Bhumika Printed from counselvise.com "