Court orders CBI probe into disputed email authenticity, alleges forgery and evidence fabrication.

The court directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate the authenticity of an email granting an adjournment, as disputed by the respondent. Allegations of forgery and fabrication of evidence were made, with potential penal offenses highlighted. The court emphasized the need for a thorough inquiry due to the involvement of sensitive servers and a senior official. The respondent's belated offer to ascertain the email's source was criticized. No coercive action against the petitioner was permitted pending further orders, with the next hearing scheduled for September 6, 2021.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Challenge to the assessment order dated 01st June 2021.
2. Request for adjournment and extension of time to file a reply.
3. Authenticity of the email dated 31st May 2021 (Annexure P-4).
4. Allegations of forgery and fabrication of evidence.
5. Inquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Challenge to the assessment order dated 01st June 2021:
The petitioner challenged the assessment order dated 01st June 2021, arguing that it was issued despite an adjournment being granted until 14th June 2021. The petitioner claimed that the adjournment was necessary due to the inability of the Resolution Professional to access company records because of lockdown restrictions.

2. Request for adjournment and extension of time to file a reply:
On 31st May 2021, the petitioner requested an adjournment, which was allegedly granted until 14th June 2021. However, the assessment order was issued on 01st June 2021. The petitioner argued that the issuance of the assessment order was inappropriate given the granted adjournment.

3. Authenticity of the email dated 31st May 2021 (Annexure P-4):
The respondent disputed the authenticity of the email dated 31st May 2021, which purportedly granted the adjournment. The respondent claimed that this email did not originate from their office and requested the court to dismiss the petition based on this ground.

4. Allegations of forgery and fabrication of evidence:
The respondent alleged that the petitioner had approached the court with unclean hands by submitting a forged email. The counter-affidavit suggested that the petitioner might have committed penal offenses under Sections 191, 192, and 196 of the IPC, which pertain to giving false evidence, fabricating false evidence, and using evidence known to be false.

5. Inquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI):
Given the serious nature of the allegations, the court directed the CBI to investigate whether the email dated 31st May 2021 was issued by the Income Tax Department and to determine its authenticity. The court emphasized the need for a thorough inquiry due to the involvement of a sensitive server and a senior official of the Income Tax Department. The CBI was instructed to file its report within four weeks, and the involved parties were directed to cooperate with the investigation.

Additional Observations:
- The court noted that the respondent's offer to ascertain the source of the email from the Directorate of Systems was belated and lacked bona fides.
- The court highlighted the importance of ensuring that citizens invoking the court's extraordinary jurisdiction are not intimidated by allegations of forgery and prosecution without proper inquiry.
- The court clarified that if the email was found to be forged by the petitioner, it would initiate action under relevant IPC sections. Conversely, if the email was issued by the Income Tax e-filing portal, action would be taken against the deponent of the counter-affidavit for stating half-truths.

Interim Order:
The court ordered that no coercive action should be taken against the petitioner by the Assessing Officer until further orders. The case was scheduled for the next hearing on 06th September 2021. The order was to be uploaded on the website and forwarded to the counsel via email.

---