Karnataka High Court
T R Indira vs Prl Chief Commissioner on 21 September, 2022
Bench: Krishna S.Dixit
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO.14725 OF 2021(GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
T. R. INDIRA,
W/O T. V. RAMACHANDRA @
V RAMACHANDRAIAHA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
R/O NO.491, DHOBIGHAT MAIN ROAD,
WEST GAVIPURAM,
BANGALORE 560 019.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S P SHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W
SMT. MAMATA G KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. PRL CHIEF COMMISSIONER,
OF INCOME TAX OF KARNATAKA,
C. R. BUILDING, INFANTRY ROAD,
BANGALORE 560 001.
2. THE PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
BANGALORE -II, 5TH FLOOR,
BMTC BUILDING, 80FT ROAD,
6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA,
BANGALORE - 560 095.
3. K. RAGHUNANDAN,
S/O LATE K. LAKSHMINARAYANA SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,
2
4. K. SHYAMALANANDAN,
W/O K RAGHUNANDAN,
AGED 66 YEARS,
5. K. R. PADMAPRIYA,
D/O K RAGHUNANDAN,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
6. K. R. RAJESH,
S/O K. RAGHUNANDAN,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/AT NO.19, S. B. ROAD CROSS,
VISVESHWARAPURAM,
BANGALORE - 560 004.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. E.I.SANMATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2;
SRI.DR. G SUKUMARAN, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R6)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
ISSUE DIRECTION TO THE R1 AND 2 TO ISSUE AND DELIVER
ATTESTED COPIES OF THE INCOME TAX RETURNS FILED BY
R3 TO 6 FOR THE ACCOUNTING YEAR 2000-01 /ASSESSMENT
YEAR 2001-02 AVAILABLE WITH INCOME TAX OFFICER 234B,
WARD-2(4) BANGALORE, CONCERNING R3 TO 6 I.E, a)K
RAGUNANDA (OLD PAN R-183 NEW PAN AAFHK4203A, b)SMT
K SHYMALA NANDAN (OLD PAN S-266, NEW PAN ATLPS
6049M, c)K R PADMAPRIAYA (NEW PAN NOT KNOWN OLD
PAN P-935 AND d)K.R.RAJESH (NEW PAN AFPPR8660B, OLD
PAN R-117) AND TO TAKE APPROPRIATE PENAL ACTION
AGAINST R3 TO 6 FOR NON-DISCLOSURE / CONCEALMENT
OF INCOME OF RS.8,50,000/- FOR THE ACCOUNT YEAR /
ASSESSMENT YEAR AND FURTHER THE HON'BLE COURT MAY
BE PLEASED TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE
ENDORSEMENT ANNEXURE-J AS CONTRARY TO LAW AND THE
CONCEPT OF PUBLIC INTEREST IN AMENDING SECTION 138
OF IT ACT AFTER DELETION OF SECTION 137, TO GRANT
SUCH OTHER RELIEF IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
3
ORDER
Shri .S P Shankar, Learned Sr. Advocate appearing
for the petitioner submits that a particular stand was
taken by the Respondents 3 to 6 who happened to be
plaintiffs in a specific performance suit in
O.S.No.5920/2003 wherein the petitioner was the
defendant. In order to prove a particular contention,
taken up by the plaintiffs' side to be untrue, petitioner
had sought for certain documents that are in the
exclusive custody of Income Tax Department, the
respondent herein. The request for copies of the
documents having not been acceded to the petitioner, is
grieving before the Writ Court.
2. Learned Sr. Advocate also notifies to the Court
in all fairness that the suit having been dismissed vide
Judgment & Decree dated 26.04.2017 the matter is now
pending in appeal before a Coordinate Bench in RFA
No.1312/2017.
3. Learned Standing Counsel representing the
Income Tax Department opposes the petition contending
that the documents filed along with the Income Tax
Returns enjoy privacy protection in terms of Section
138(3) of the Income tax Act, 1961 and that except for
advancing the public interest, they cannot be shared with
others; this apart, the documents belong to the Financial
Year 1999-2000. He also contends that it was open to
the petitioner to seek an order at the hands of trial Court
below to summon the records from the Income Tax
Department and this he can do even at the belated stage
in appeal under Order XLI Rule 33 of Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908. So contending, he seeks dismissal of
the petition.
4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing
for the parties and having perused the petition papers,
this Court is broadly in agreement with the submission of
the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Income
Tax Department as above and therefore declines
indulgence in the matter.
In the above circumstances, this petition is
disposed off reserving liberty to the petitioner to move an
appropriate application before the RFA Court since
arguably there is such a provision in the Code for
entertaining request of the kind, in discretion.
All contentions are kept open.
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Bsv
