TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1124
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....India seeking for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction on the part of respondent No.6 in not considering the application dated 17.04.2025 submitted by the petitioner seeking sworn statements of the partners, employees of respondent No.7 firm and that of respondent Nos.8 to 10 and their family members which were obtained during search and seizure operation conducted on the respondent No.7 firm on 18.11.2024 as illegal, arbitrary, unlawful and in violation of the principles of natural justice. 2. Heard Mr. A. Venkatesh, learned Senior Counsel, representing Ms. L. Soumya, learned counsel on record for the petitioner, Mr. N.Praveen Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department for respondent Nos.2 to 6, and Mr. A.V....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed sidelining the petitioner. Because of the dispute that arouse between the petitioner and other private respondents, the matter has turned into an arbitration dispute and Mr. A.Venkateshwara Reddy, a retired Judge of the High Court for the State of Telangana was appointed as an Arbitrator. As things were proceeding, it has been learnt that on 18.11.2024, the official respondents, more particularly the respondent No.6 conducted search and seizure operation at the premises of the unofficial respondent Nos.8 to 10 and their family members. It has been contended that respondent Nos.8 and 9 have misled the petitioner in respect of the so-called search and seizure operation, rather denied such search and seizure operation to have been undertake....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hed this Court for a suitable direction for release of such information. 7. Having considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the factual aspects as has been reflected in the preceding paragraphs, admittedly:- a) There is a firm in which the petitioner and respondent Nos.8 to 10 are also directors; b) There appears to be some serious family disputes inter se between the petitioner and respondent Nos.8 to 10; c) There is also an arbitration dispute pending before the Arbitrator who is a retired Judge of this High Court; and d) On 18.11.2024, there was a search and seizure operation conducted by respondent No.6 and it is learnt that respondent Nos.8 and 9 have made certain statements of oath before the of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by any income-tax authority in the performance of his functions under this Act], the [[Principal Chief Commissioner or] Chief Commissioner or [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner or] Commissioner] may, if he is satisfied that it is in the public interest so to do, furnish or cause to be furnished the information asked for and his decision in this behalf shall be final and shall not be called in question in any court of law.]" 12. Further, what would be relevant is to take note of the reason for which the information has been sought for. The petitioner in respect of the same, on oath, has stated as under: "Furthermore, with ongoing arbitration proceedings initiated by the unofficial Respondent Nos. 8 to 10 seeking his expulsion from ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ic interest at large. The information sought for can only be given to the person who is bonafidely entitled for the same, unlike the petitioner, who in his affidavit itself has stated that the information is required as an effective defence before the Arbitrator. This in the opinion of this Bench would not be a justifiable ground for allowing of a writ petition for the relief sought for. In nutshell, the information sought for by the petitioner cannot be permitted to be used for vested interest, more particularly to settle scores with private respondents. 14. Another aspect which needs to be considered is that, the Act and the rules framed therein are totally silent in respect of the relief sought for, so far as whether the information can....