TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1997 (11) TMI 9
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion while exercising power under the Income-tax Act. justice should not only be done, but it should be seen to have been done. Sometimes, it is the mala fide deeds of some individual officer, which tarnishes the image of the whole Department. Such action should be deprecated. An atmosphere should be created, where the assessee should have full confidence in getting a fair justice. The element of fairness is certainly lacking in this case, as already observed by this court on October 15, 1994. It is high time that the Department itself came forward to fix the personal accountability of the officer who acts with mala fide intention or acts to achieve some oblique motive under the guise of judicial, quasi-judicial or even administrative orders, The higher authorities of the Income-tax Department should have taken stringent action against such erring officer against whom strictures had been passed by this court. Both these appeals arise out of the remand order dated October 1, 1997 (Jayanti Lal Patel v. Asst. CIT [1998] 233 ITR 588), passed by the learned single judge. The controversy involved in them are almost common, so they are being decided by a common judgment. This ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and when he failed in his mission against Dr. Tomar, then, in order to save his face and conceal the lapses, he filed the FIR, The action of Mr. Dilip Shivpuri in pursuing the matter, was unlawful and the object was to make a character assassination of the assessee and his family members. It has been done so with an ulterior motive Of wreaking vengeance keeping in mind the private and personal grudge. Against the order, allowing the application under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Department filed a special leave petition in the Supreme Court. It was dismissed. Thus, the Supreme Court has also approved the findings of the High Court that the action of Mr. Shivpuri was wholly illegal and mala fide. After the search by the Income-tax Department, an order under section 132(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), had been passed. It was held that Jayanti Lal Patel was the owner of three FDRs. Dr. Tomar had nothing to do with it. The order for release of these FDRs was also passed. Thereafter the Commissioner issued a fresh show-cause notice to Dr. Tomar as to why the amount of three FDRS. (Rs. 11,03,811) should not be added in h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ference was made to the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (Investigation), Circle-I (3) passed under section 132(5) of the Act, in which it was found that Jayanti Lal Patel son of Magan Bhai Patel is a non-resident Indian. He resides at 115, Grove Land, Camberwell, London. He is a very close friend of the assessee, Dr. Tomar. Whenever he comes to India, he stays with him. Instead of carrying three FDRs to London, he kept them safely with the assessee. All these FDRs were made out of foreign currency brought to India and converted in Indian rupees. The money from which FDRs were purchased had come to India through the State Bank of Indore, Jaipur, from Belgium. The said bank account has been operated by Jayanti Lal Patel since 1984. The learned single judge, after considering the matter, allowed both the writ petitions and remanded the case to the assessing authority after laying down the guidelines in the order. The learned single judge, on a perusal of the material on record, held that three FDRs were the property of Jayanti Lal Patel. There was no justification for adding the amount of FDRs in the income of Dr. Tomar. They should be deleted. The FDRs be r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cle 226." Reference was also made to the case reported in K. S. Rashid and Son v. I. T Investigation, Commission [1954] 25 ITR 167 (SC) ; AIR 1954 SC 207. In addition to that, reference was made to the cases reported in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Krishna Kant [1995] 87 FJR 204 ; [1995] AIR 1995 SC 1715 ; State of Punjab v. V. P. Duggal, AIR 1977 SC 196 R. V. Bhupal Prasad v. State of A.P. [1996] AIR 1996 SC 140, M. P. Oil Extraction v. State of M. P. [1998] AIR 1998 SC 145 ; [1997] 2 Unreported judgment (SC) 438. But, surprisingly, none of these cases deal with the alternative remedy touching the controversy in hand. He has also referred to a Full. Bench judgment of this court reported in Gopi Lal Teti v. State of Rajasthan [1995] 87 FJR 89 ; [1995] 1 RLW 1, in which while considering the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the principles of natural justice, it was held that the normal course is to pursue the remedy provided under the Act and exercise the power under article 226 of the Constitution. In none of these cases, it has been observed that even if the impugned order has been passed purely on malice both in fact and law, the High....