Case Law Details
K. R. Sadasivam Vs Commissioner, Income Tax Department (Madras High Court)
Introduction: The recent judgment in the case of K. R. Sadasivam Vs Commissioner (Madras High Court) sheds light on the intricacies of borrower-lender disputes and the jurisdiction of courts in matters concerning income tax returns. The petitioner’s plea for disclosure of the lender’s income tax returns was dismissed, with the court advising alternative avenues for resolution.
Detailed Analysis: The petitioner, in this case, had borrowed from a lending entity and subsequently raised concerns regarding the lender’s undisclosed income in their tax returns. Despite submitting a representation and approaching the Income Tax Department, the petitioner’s grievances remained unaddressed. However, the court emphasized that such matters fall beyond its purview, urging the petitioner to pursue civil remedies or approach regulatory bodies like the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) for resolution.
The court’s stance underscores the importance of delineating legal jurisdictions in financial disputes. While acknowledging the borrower’s concerns, the court reaffirmed that the disclosure of income tax returns lies outside the scope of its authority. Instead, it directed the petitioner to seek recourse through appropriate legal channels, such as civil courts for contractual disputes or regulatory bodies for financial grievances.
Moreover, the judgment highlights the significance of regulatory oversight in financial transactions. By advising the petitioner to resort to the RBI for concerns regarding the lender’s business practices, the court emphasizes the role of regulatory frameworks in safeguarding the interests of borrowers and maintaining transparency in financial transactions.
Conclusion: The dismissal of the petitioner’s plea by the Madras High Court in the case of K. R. Sadasivam Vs Commissioner underscores the need for borrowers to navigate legal avenues diligently in financial disputes. While the court empathizes with the petitioner’s concerns, it reiterates the importance of adhering to established legal procedures and seeking resolution through appropriate channels. This judgment serves as a reminder of the nuanced legal landscape governing borrower-lender relationships and underscores the significance of regulatory oversight in financial matters.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
The petitioner seeks a direction for the consideration of a representation dated 05.09.2023 to provide the Income Tax Returns of the lender.
2. The petitioner had borrowed from the third respondent, who is engaged in the business of lending. In relation thereto, it is stated that the petitioner’s wife had mortgaged an immovable asset. The petitioner asserts that the lender had not disclosed his income in his Income Tax Returns. After submitting a representation dated 05.09.2023 complaining about the conduct of the lender, the present writ petition was filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred extensively to the representation dated 05.09.2023 and contended that the lender had indulged in unlawful practices. He further submitted that the Income Tax Department failed to respond to the representation.
4. Dr. B. Ramaswamy, learned senior standing counsel, accepts notice for the first and second respondents. He points out that the petitioner has already instituted civil proceedings against the lender. He further submits that the petitioner does not have the right to seek the income tax returns of the lender.
5. The petitioner is a borrower from the third respondent. If the petitioner has any civil claims in relation thereto, the petitioner should approach the jurisdictional civil court. If, on the other hand, the petitioner has a grievance or complaint with regard to the manner in which financing business was carried out by the first respondent, the petitioner should approach the regulator, i.e. the Reserve Bank of India. Instead, the petitioner has approached this Court after submitting the representation seeking the income tax returns of the third respondent. The petitioner has no right to request for such returns, and, therefore, this petition is misconceived.
6. Hence, W.P.No.6634 of 2024 is dismissed without any order as to costs by leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue other remedies in accordance with law. No costs.
Author Bio
