Rachana Srivastava v. Sh Prasenjit Singh
Case brief
What is this about?
This contempt petition application sought modification of a prior order regarding an Income Tax investigation. The public domain report concluded no tax evasion by the husband. The Department urged non-disclosure of the report. The Court held the report was not confidential and directed the Department to supply copies.
What did the court decide?
Directed the Department of Income Tax to supply a copy of the report dated 29.08.2024 to the petitioner within two weeks.
What the court decided
*** IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI**
% Judgment reserved on : 04 April 2025 Judgment pronounced on: 17 April 2025
- CONT. CAS (C) 994/2024 RACHANA SRIVASTAVA ..... Petitioner Through: Petitioner in person.
versus
SH. PRASENJIT SINGH ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Shlok Chandra, Sr. SC with Ms. Naincy Jain, Jr. SC with Ms. Madhavi Shukla, Jr. SC for Income Tax Department.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA
ORDER
- The present contempt petition, filed on behalf of the petitioner, was disposed of vide order dated 02.07.2024, whereby the respondent was directed to conclude the relevant enquiry with regard to certain alleged irregular, manipulated, and fraudulent transactions carried out by the estranged husband of the petitioner using her PAN1 Card. It was claimed by the petitioner that she was not the beneficiary of certain transactions reflected in the ITR2 for the Assessment Year 2022-n 2023, which were rather the earnings of her husband.
CM APPL. 50565/2024
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Income Tax Department is barred from disclosing an investigation report to the petitioner under the CTIO or prior limitation rules.
Whether the confidentiality claims regarding the investigation report are given legal colour or public interest prevails.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
RACHANA SRIVASTAVA
- respondent
SH. PRASENJIT SINGH
Coram
DHARMESH SHARMA
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court