Dharamdas Mihani vs. Income Tax Officer

WP/3761/2008HC Madhya Pradesh24 April 2014Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA MENON1 pages

For Petitioner: Gs.Ahluwalia,R.Jain,Subodh GautamFor Respondent: S.Tuli, Sanjay Lal, P. Yadav

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, with the consent of both learned counsel for the parties, disposed of the writ petition with the direction that the petitioner be granted liberty to file objections, if not already filed. The Assessing Officer was to be guided by the Supreme Court's decision in GKN Driveshafts (India) Limited Vs. Income Tax Officer and others, [2003] 259 ITR 19 (SC) while adjudicating the controversy. The Court explicitly clarified that it had not expressed any opinion regarding the legal acceptability of the material brought before it by way of police investigation, notwithstanding the revenue's submission that it could be relied upon even if search and seizure were declared invalid. The petition was accordingly disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Dharamdas Mihani, filed Writ Petition No. 3761/2008 before the High Court. This petition was identical to a bunch of other writ petitions, including Writ Petition No. 16776/2007, filed by the petitioner's family members against the Income Tax Department. These identical petitions had been decided by a Division Bench of the High Court through a common order dated 24.08.2009. The present petition was disposed of with the consent of both parties based on the precedent set by the earlier common order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the present writ petition should be disposed of in line with the common order dated 24.08.2009 passed by a Division Bench of this High Court in identical writ petitions filed by the family members of the petitioner. The petitioner's counsel sought to dispose of the petition with the same directions as the earlier common order. The revenue's counsel consented to this approach. The court also noted the revenue's submission that police investigation material could be relied upon despite search and seizure being declared invalid, but the court explicitly stated it had not expressed any opinion on the legal acceptability of this material.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Writ Petition No :: 3761 / 2008

Dharamdas Mihani Vs. Income Tax Officer and another 24.04.2014. Shri G.S. Ahluwalia for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay Lal for the respondents. It is not in dispute that a Division Bench of this High Court by a common order dated 24.8.2009 had decided bunch of identical writ petitions including Writ Petition No. 16776/2007, filed by the family members of the petitioner against the Income Tax Department. Therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is also finally disposed of with the same direction by giving liberty to the petitioner to file objections, if not filed, and to take appropriate steps as has been held in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Limited Vs. Income Tax Officer and others, [2003] 259 ITR 19 (SC), and the Assessing Officer shall be guided by the decision of the Supreme Court while adjudicating the controversy. We, however, make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion with regard to the legal acceptability of the material brought before this Court by way of police investigation despite the submission put forth by the counsel appearing for the Income Tax Department that the same can be relied upon inspite of the search and seizure having been declared invalid. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of. CC as per rules.

( RAJENDRA MENON ) ( A.K. SHARMA )

J U D G E J U D G E Aks/-

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →