Krishnagopal vs Director of Income Tax (Investigation) and Another

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the IT Department and we have also gone through the record as well as the impugned order of the learned Single Judge of this Court. The requisition issued by the IT Department under s. 132A of the IT Act, 1961, is under challenge on the ground that on the ''information'' in possession of the IT authorities, they could not be said to have a ''reason to believe'' that the assets which consisted of cash, raw silver and silver ornaments were not disclosed or would not be disclosed to the IT authorities.

At the time of issuing the requisition under s. 132A to the police station for handing over the assets consisting of cash and silver, the ''information'' in possession of the IT Department was that the appellant-petitioner was found in a hotel called Hotel Shyama in the city of Jabalpur with about 118 kgs. of silver and about Rs. 4 lacs in cash. When he was detected by the police he did not give out his correct name and correct residential address and in that manner he tried to conceal his identity. Not only this, as stated in the memo of appeal as well as in the writ petition, the appellant is admittedly a resident of Mathura while at the time of checking into the hotel he had written his address as Dondia. The wrong mention of address in the hotel register is supported by statements of two employees of the hotel. Further, when questioned by the police the appellant could not disclose the source of these possessions. With such concealment of identity and such a large amount of bullion and cash, if the IT authority came to the conclusion that considering the dealing in cash as well as concealment of identity there was a likelihood of non-disclosure of these assets, it could not be held in writ jurisdiction that there could possibly be no ''reason to believe'' on the basis of the aforesaid information. In the light of the above, we see no good reason to disagree with the detailed reasons given by the learned Single Judge in his impugned order.

Learned counsel for the IT Department has cited the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Suman Singhai vs. Director of IT (Inv.) & Anr. (2010) 48 DTR (MP) 97. Appeal dismissed.