Bandaru Venkatarathnam Vs Director General of Income Tax & Ors. (Madras High Court)
Summary: Madras High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by Bandaru Venkatarathnam alleging that his income-tax returns for financial years 2013-14 to 2022-23 had been unlawfully obtained by a private party. The petitioner had submitted representations dated 29.06.2026 and 28.07.2026 to the Income Tax authorities seeking an inquiry into the alleged leakage of his private financial data, identification of the perpetrator and action against the perpetrator and beneficiary.
Since, according to the petitioner, no action was taken on those representations, he approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of mandamus. His counsel referred to a communication dated 02.07.2026 from the Income-tax Officer to the Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax-8 and submitted that no further action had been taken.
The Revenue’s senior standing counsel stated before the Court that the representations would be considered and disposed of on merits. Considering the nature of the relief sought and this submission, the High Court did not express any opinion on the merits of the allegations. Instead, it directed the second respondent, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-8, to pass orders on the petitioner’s representations dated 29.06.2026 and 28.07.2026 within three months from receipt of a copy of the order. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of without costs. The case thus concerns administrative consideration of a taxpayer’s complaint regarding alleged unauthorised access to income-tax returns; the Court itself did not determine whether any data leakage had actually occurred.
FULL TEXT OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT ORDER
Alleging that the income-tax returns of the petitioner for financial years 2013-14 to 2022-23 were unlawfully obtained by a private party, the petitioner submitted representations dated 29.06.2026 and 28.07.2026 to the respondents to conduct an inquiry and dispose of said representations. Alleging that action was not taken thereon, the present writ petition has been filed.
2. By drawing reference to communication dated 02.07.2026 from the Income-tax Officer to the Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax – 8, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no action was taken thereafter.
3. Dr. B.Ramaswamy, learned senior standing counsel, accepts notice for the respondents. He submit that the representations would be considered and disposed of on merits.
4. Considering the nature of relief claimed in the writ petition and the submissions made on behalf of the respondents, without expressing any opinion on merits, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the second respondent to pass orders on the petitioner’s representations dated 29.06.2026 and 28.07.2026 within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. No costs.
