Chennai
Observing that a writ against a show-cause notice could be entertained only if it was issued without jurisdiction or on malafide grounds, Justice SM Subramaniam pointed out that Karti and Srinidhi failed to establish either of these.
“In the present case, the authority competent must be allowed to scrutinise the searched and impounded materials, and provide an opportunity to the assessees to defend their case. Such an adjudicatory process alone would provide justice to the parties. Therefore, this court is not inclined to interfere at the stage of show-cause notice as far as the present writ petitions are concerned,” Justice Subramaniam held.
Based on the aspect that factual controversies and intricacies involved in the case are to be adjudicated elaborately to cull out the truth, the court opined that interference at this stage would cause prejudice to the due process of law to be undertaken by the authorities.
The judge directed the IT Department to proceed with the assessment/reassessment by following the procedures as contemplated and by affording opportunity to the petitioners, and complete it as expeditiously as possible.
According to the IT Department, Karti and Srinidhi wife had received Rs 6.38 crore and and Rs 1.35 crore respectively in cash for the sale of a land at Muttukadu years ago, but did not disclose it in their income tax returns.
It may be noted that another single judge had earlier quashed the criminal proceedings against the couple, noting that only the assessing officer should have initiated the prosecution. However, the judge had also held that if the assessing officer came to the conclusion in proceedings under Section 153 of the Income Tax Act, it was open to the department to initiate penal action as per law.
Visit news.dtnext.in to explore our interactive epaper!
Download the DT Next app for more exciting features!
Click here for iOS
Click here for Android