T R INDIRA V. PRL CHIEF COMMISSIONER

WP/14725/2021

AI Insights

The case involves T. R. Indira, the petitioner, who sought to obtain copies of income tax returns and related documents of respondents 3 to 6 from the Income Tax Department, which were crucial for her defense in a specific performance suit where she was the defendant. The respondents, being plaintiffs in that suit, had used these documents to support their claims. The Income Tax Department refused to provide these documents citing privacy protections under the Income Tax Act. The petitioner challenged this refusal in the High Court, which led to the current writ petition. The court's decision emphasized the privacy of tax documents and suggested alternative legal avenues for the petitioner to obtain the needed documents.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 726688 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 21-09-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Constitution of India, Income Tax Act, 1961, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: E I SANMATHI; G SUKUMARAN
• Assessee Lawyers: S P SHANKAR; MAMATA KULKARNI
• Keywords: Certiorari; Certiorari; Concealment of income; Income Tax Returns; Non-disclosure; Public interest; Quashing; Writ petition; Privacy Protection
• Section: 41; 226; 138; 33; 227; 137; 138(3)

Judgement Text

" 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.14725 OF 2021(GM-RES) BETWEEN: T. R. INDIRA, W/O T. V. RAMACHANDRA @ V RAMACHANDRAIAHA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/O NO.491, DHOBIGHAT MAIN ROAD, WEST GAVIPURAM, BANGALORE 560 019. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. S P SHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SMT. MAMATA G KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. PRL CHIEF COMMISSIONER, OF INCOME TAX OF KARNATAKA, C. R. BUILDING, INFANTRY ROAD, BANGALORE 560 001. 2. THE PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BANGALORE –II, 5TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80FT ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE - 560 095. 3. K. RAGHUNANDAN, S/O LATE K. LAKSHMINARAYANA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, 2 4. K. SHYAMALANANDAN, W/O K RAGHUNANDAN, AGED 66 YEARS, 5. K. R. PADMAPRIYA, D/O K RAGHUNANDAN, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, 6. K. R. RAJESH, S/O K. RAGHUNANDAN, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT NO.19, S. B. ROAD CROSS, VISVESHWARAPURAM, BANGALORE - 560 004. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. E.I.SANMATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; SRI.DR. G SUKUMARAN, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R6) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE DIRECTION TO THE R1 AND 2 TO ISSUE AND DELIVER ATTESTED COPIES OF THE INCOME TAX RETURNS FILED BY R3 TO 6 FOR THE ACCOUNTING YEAR 2000-01 /ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 AVAILABLE WITH INCOME TAX OFFICER 234B, WARD-2(4) BANGALORE, CONCERNING R3 TO 6 I.E, a)K RAGUNANDA (OLD PAN R-183 NEW PAN AAFHK4203A, b)SMT K SHYMALA NANDAN (OLD PAN S-266, NEW PAN ATLPS 6049M, c)K R PADMAPRIAYA (NEW PAN NOT KNOWN OLD PAN P-935 AND d)K.R.RAJESH (NEW PAN AFPPR8660B, OLD PAN R-117) AND TO TAKE APPROPRIATE PENAL ACTION AGAINST R3 TO 6 FOR NON-DISCLOSURE / CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OF RS.8,50,000/- FOR THE ACCOUNT YEAR / ASSESSMENT YEAR AND FURTHER THE HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT ANNEXURE-J AS CONTRARY TO LAW AND THE CONCEPT OF PUBLIC INTEREST IN AMENDING SECTION 138 OF IT ACT AFTER DELETION OF SECTION 137, TO GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- 3 ORDER Shri .S P Shankar, Learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that a particular stand was taken by the Respondents 3 to 6 who happened to be plaintiffs in a specific performance suit in O.S.No.5920/2003 wherein the petitioner was the defendant. In order to prove a particular contention, taken up by the plaintiffs’ side to be untrue, petitioner had sought for certain documents that are in the exclusive custody of Income Tax Department, the respondent herein. The request for copies of the documents having not been acceded to the petitioner, is grieving before the Writ Court. 2. Learned Sr. Advocate also notifies to the Court in all fairness that the suit having been dismissed vide Judgment & Decree dated 26.04.2017 the matter is now pending in appeal before a Coordinate Bench in RFA No.1312/2017. 4 3. Learned Standing Counsel representing the Income Tax Department opposes the petition contending that the documents filed along with the Income Tax Returns enjoy privacy protection in terms of Section 138(3) of the Income tax Act, 1961 and that except for advancing the public interest, they cannot be shared with others; this apart, the documents belong to the Financial Year 1999-2000. He also contends that it was open to the petitioner to seek an order at the hands of trial Court below to summon the records from the Income Tax Department and this he can do even at the belated stage in appeal under Order XLI Rule 33 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the petition. 4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is broadly in agreement with the submission of the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Income 5 Tax Department as above and therefore declines indulgence in the matter. In the above circumstances, this petition is disposed off reserving liberty to the petitioner to move an appropriate application before the RFA Court since arguably there is such a provision in the Code for entertaining request of the kind, in discretion. All contentions are kept open. No costs. Sd/- JUDGE Bsv "