Dr. S. Karunakaran Vs. Income Tax Officer - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- ordere. padmanabhan, j.1. the petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to issue the copies of the certificate in form no. 10-i, as well as the statements recorded by him on the basis of which he has issued the notice dt. 14th oct., 1999, to the petitioner and forbearing him from taking further proceedings without furnishing the aforesaid documents.2. heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the revenue.3. in fact, a show-cause notice was issued by the respondent as to why sanction should not be accorded to prosecute the petitioner under sections 277 and 278 r/w section 276c of the it act, 1961. the attention of the petitioner was drawn to section 279(2) of the it act, which empowers the chief cit in his discretion to compound such offence on payment of the prescribed compounding fee. in case the petitioner is not interested in availing this facility, he has been called upon to intimate his stand in this respect. in fact at the request of the petitioner, the respondent furnished one of the statements. even thereafter, the petitioner has come before this court.4. the main grievance of the petitioner is that certified copy of declaration in form 10-i should be furnished. it has to be pointed out that whatever action is being taken is for sanction to prosecute and it is not conclusive nor it is final and it is for the judicial magistrate to decide as to whether the petitioner is guilty of the offence or not and at that stage sufficient opportunity will be given to the petitioner.5. all that the counsel for the petitioner pleads is that the writ petitioner is a very senior medical practitioner and that he should not be harassed. no question of harassment arises. however, the learned counsel for the petitioner represents that the petitioner or his counsel be permitted to have inspection of the declaration in form 10-i in respect of which action is being taken. for such a course, the learned counsel for the revenue cannot have any objection.6. in fairness and in give an opportunity, this court directs the respondents to permit the petitioner or his representative to have inspection of declaration issued in form 10-i in respect of those declaration where action is being contemplated.7. the respondent shall afford an opportunity at the request of the counsel for the petitioner for inspection within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and within two weeks from the date of inspection, if no objection is filed, the respondent shall proceed further according to law.8. the writ petition is ordered in the above terms. no costs. consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Judgment:
ORDER

E. Padmanabhan, J.

1. The petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to issue the copies of the certificate in Form No. 10-I, as well as the statements recorded by him on the basis of which he has issued the notice dt. 14th Oct., 1999, to the petitioner and forbearing him from taking further proceedings without furnishing the aforesaid documents.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the Revenue.

3. In fact, a show-cause notice was issued by the respondent as to why sanction should not be accorded to prosecute the petitioner under Sections 277 and 278 r/w Section 276C of the IT Act, 1961. The attention of the petitioner was drawn to Section 279(2) of the IT Act, which empowers the Chief CIT in his discretion to compound such offence on payment of the prescribed compounding fee. In case the petitioner is not interested in availing this facility, he has been called upon to intimate his stand in this respect. In fact at the request of the petitioner, the respondent furnished one of the statements. Even thereafter, the petitioner has come before this Court.

4. The main grievance of the petitioner is that certified copy of declaration in Form 10-I should be furnished. It has to be pointed out that whatever action is being taken is for sanction to prosecute and it is not conclusive nor it is final and it is for the judicial magistrate to decide as to whether the petitioner is guilty of the offence or not and at that stage sufficient opportunity will be given to the petitioner.

5. All that the counsel for the petitioner pleads is that the writ petitioner is a very senior medical practitioner and that he should not be harassed. No question of harassment arises. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner represents that the petitioner or his counsel be permitted to have inspection of the declaration in Form 10-I in respect of which action is being taken. For such a course, the learned counsel for the Revenue cannot have any objection.

6. In fairness and in give an opportunity, this Court directs the respondents to permit the petitioner or his representative to have inspection of declaration issued in Form 10-I in respect of those declaration where action is being contemplated.

7. The respondent shall afford an opportunity at the request of the counsel for the petitioner for inspection within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and within two weeks from the date of inspection, if no objection is filed, the respondent shall proceed further according to law.

8. The writ petition is ordered in the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.