Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Three C Homes Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging the assessment order dated 01.06.2021 passed by the Income Tax Department under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The petitioner contended that due to COVID-19 lockdown restrictions in Uttar Pradesh and Delhi, its Resolution Professional was unable to access company records and had sought an adjournment on 31.05.2021 to file a response to the notice issued under Section 142(1).

The petitioner relied on an email allegedly received from the Income Tax Department indicating that the response due date had been extended. However, despite this, the assessment order was passed on 01.06.2021 without granting adequate opportunity.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) without granting reasonable opportunity violated principles of natural justice.
  2. Whether the alleged email granting adjournment dated 31.05.2021 was genuine or fabricated.
  3. Whether the petitioner approached the Court with clean hands.
  4. Whether serious allegations of forgery and false evidence under IPC Sections 191, 192, and 196 were made out.
  5. Whether an independent investigation was required to ascertain the authenticity of disputed electronic communication.

Petitioner’s Arguments

  • The petitioner argued that an adjournment had been granted via email dated 31.05.2021 extending time to file a response.
  • Passing the assessment order on 01.06.2021, despite granting adjournment, was arbitrary and illegal.
  • The email originated from the official Income Tax e-filing portal, and technical glitches in the ITBA system were possible.
  • The issuance of subsequent notices fixing hearing on 14.06.2021 indicated that adjournment had indeed been granted.

Respondent’s Arguments

  • The Income Tax Department denied the authenticity of the email relied upon by the petitioner.
  • It was contended that all official communications were sent only from the designated departmental email ID.
  • The respondent alleged that the petitioner fabricated evidence and approached the Court with unclean hands.
  • Serious allegations were raised that the petitioner committed offences under Sections 191 (false evidence), 192 (fabrication), and 196 IPC (using false evidence).

Court Findings / Order

  • The Delhi High Court observed that the dispute regarding the email’s authenticity was serious and could not be ignored.
  • The Court held that either the petitioner had fabricated the document or the respondent had failed to disclose the complete truth.
  • The Court criticized the respondent for making serious allegations without conducting proper inquiry beforehand.
  • Considering the sensitivity of the matter involving government servers, the Court directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate the origin and authenticity of the email.
  • The CBI was directed to submit a report within four weeks.
  • The Court further ordered that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner until further orders.

Important Clarifications

  • If the email is found to be fabricated, action would be initiated against the petitioner under IPC Sections 191, 192, and 196.
  • If the email is found genuine, action may be taken against the respondent officials for misleading the Court.
  • The Court emphasized its constitutional duty to protect litigants from intimidation through unverified allegations by authorities.

Sections Involved

  • Income Tax Act, 1961
    • Section 142(1) – Inquiry before assessment
    • Section 143(3) – Assessment order
  • Indian Penal Code, 1860
    • Section 191 – Giving false evidence
    • Section 192 – Fabricating false evidence
    • Section 196 – Using evidence known to be false
  • Indian Evidence Act, 1872
    • Section 65B – Admissibility of electronic evidence

Link to download the order -https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/case_number_pdf/2021:DHC:2086-DB/MMH16072021CW59122021_224633.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.