CBI to enquire validity of alleged Email sent by Income Tax Dept

Three C Homes Pvt. Ltd. Vs Asst.CIT (Delhi High Court)

Conclusion: CBI to enquire as to whether the email dated 31^st May, 2021 had been issued to assessee or not, and if so, by whom. In the event it was found that the email dated 31^st May, 2021 had been forged and fabricated by assessee it would initiate action under Sections 191/192/196 of the IPC. However, if it was found that the email dated 31^st May, 2021 had been issued by the Income Tax of India’s e-filing portal, then it would not hesitate to take action against the Deponent

Held:  Assessee-company had challenged the assessment order and had 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 assessee-company was represented by a Resolution Professional who was an independent professional and was dependent upon the past employees of assessee-company to file its response. Assessee had stated that it on 31^st 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 assessee  was unable to access the records of assessee-company due to various lockdown restrictions imposed by the State of Uttar Pradesh. Assessee had emphasized that the assessment order was bad in law because on 31^st May 2021, the adjournment sought by the Resolution Professional of assessee-company had been granted and the matter had been adjourned for 14^th June 2021. He had stated that after granting the adjournment there was no occasion for the Respondent to pass the impugned Assessment Order dated 01^st June 2021. However, on the first date of hearing i.e. 11^th June, 2021, Respondent had vehemently opposed the petition by contending that assessee had approached this Court with unclean hands. He had stated that the alleged email dated 31^st May, 2021 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.  It was held that the matter was serious in nature as one of the parties had either forged the document in question and/or was not telling a complete truth. The respondent’s (DCIT, CC-06) offered to now ascertain source of the email from the Directorate of Systems, who was having control over all income tax systems was too late in the day. Any reasonable official would have conducted the said enquiry before filing his counter affidavit and before making a serious allegation of perjury and forgery, even if prima facie, against the deponent of the writ petition. Consequently, in the opinion of this Court, the said offer of DCIT, CC-06 lacked bonafides.  Moreover, as the allegation pertained to a sensitive server belonging to the Ministry of Finance/Department of Income Tax and involved a senior official of the Income Tax Department holding a sensitive post, this Court directed the CBI to enquire as to whether the email dated 31^st May, 2021 had been issued to assessee or not, and if so, by whom. In the event it was found that the email dated 31^st May, 2021 had been forged and fabricated by assessee it would initiate action under Sections 191/192/196 of the IPC. However, if it was found that the email dated 31^st May, 2021 had been issued by the Income Tax of India’s e-filing portal, then it would not hesitate to take action against the Deponent of the counter affidavit for stating ‘half-truths’, namely, that the email dated 31^st May, 2021 had not been generated by the respondent, as from the order dated 11^th June, 2021 and the averment made in the counter affidavit, this Court had no doubt that the inarticulate submission of the respondent was that the email dated 31^st May, 2021 (Annexure P-4) had been forged and fabricated by assessee.

Also Read: HC Accepted Department’s apology & recalled CBI inquiry over automated mail