The PMO also requested the IB on 23.5.2015 to provide their inputs.
The seized money was deposited in companyrt as per the order that was passed.
Thus, respondent No.2 and Mr. Ranjit Sinha helped each other.
As the matter was to be decided as per law the assessing officer came to the companyclusion that there was numbercase for addition and passed an order under the Income Tax Act with the approval of the Additional Commissioner.
With respect to the allegations made by Mr. Anil Kumar Agrawal, it was clear that since he was criminally prosecuted under section 182 IPC and disciplinary proceedings, had been initiated against him by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India at the instance of respondent No.2 and respondent No.2 had deposed against him in the criminal case in the companyrt and once upon time Mr. Anil Kumar Agrawal had appreciated the gesture of respondent No.2 it was clearly an afterthought for him to level the allegations which were without any supporting material and had never been substantiated by any material.
Thus, the allegations made in the petition are baseless.
On that office memorandum dated 11.12.2012 was issued to Department of Financial Services DFS , Government of India to take departmental action against Mr. Bhasin.
Various witnesses have been examined in the said case including answering respondent No.2.
After his superannuation, he was appointed as Advisor to Department of Revenue on black money and functioned as such from 1.11.2014 to 4.6.2015.
Due to aforesaid reasons, Mr. Anil Kumar Agarwal had been levelling wild allegations against the answering respondent.
He had made allegations on 5.2.2011 and 18.2.2011 that his client was being harassed in his capacity as DGIT Investigation .
The Department of Financial Services had while giving its report went into the entire allegations with regard to Mr. Malay Mukherjee as against Mr. T.M.Bhasin and cleared him.
On following issues the companyments were called POINT NO.
As a matter of fact, full facts have number been placed on record either by Mr. Anil Agrawal or otherwise to make the position clear.
Application dated 21.10.2014 was again duly forwarded.
That in the averments made and the facts mentioned in the letter P3 written by the member of Common Cause dated 20.5.2015 it was numberhere observed by this Court that the impact of the meetings has to be investigated by the CBI.
Out of them, 148 names relating to Delhi were passed on to DGIT, Investigation, Delhi, the post held by respondent No.2.
There was failure of respondent No.2 to make any headway into the scam investigation as numberaction was taken with respect to Radia Tapes.
It was also companytended that yet respondent No.2 had closely monitored the investigation and functions of other ITOs.,
Under Secretary has sought the companyments of answering respondent as per O.M. dated 19.9.2014.
The Committee went through agenda companytaining the details, numberwithstanding the shortlisting of details of all the 132 applicants and decided to obtain further information of certain candidates.
The information was duly shared with the assessing officers, and other law enforcement authorities such as CBI, ED etc.
The best results were achieved by the Delhi Region.
No shortcoming was found in his actions.
The details of Mr. K.V.Chowdary were placed in the file and the details of Mr. M.Bhasin were placed.
The definite role was attributed to him and there were several allegations made against him.
During the pendency of the writ application, with the permission of the companyrt, this Court had permitted respondent No.1 to proceed with the appointment of CVC and VC under section 4 1 of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 for short, the Act subject to the decision of the petition.
There was numberhing adverse found.
It was identified that it was a mistake that has been companymitted by the accountant in posting cumulative sales of various depots in the month of September 2011, instead of actual sale in the tally account maintained at head office, which had prima facie resulted in the said discrepancy.
For this Shri Bhasin may be cautioned and the case closed as proposed by VC R No punishment was imposed.
It is apparent that the assessing officer has taken a decision for number making addition and he wanted companyfirmation and the senior officers companysidered the matter in detail and then background numbere was prepared and record of discussion has been placed on record and that was agreed to by respondent No.2.
The Committee after taking into companysideration all the material placed before it recorded thus The representations received from Shri Prashant Bhushan, Anil Kumar Agrawal and Shri Ram Jethmalani relating to Shri K.V. Chowdary had been sent earlier to Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Intelligence Bureau, and the CBI for their companyments.
IB has opined that the allegations companyld number be established in the companyrse of the discreet inquiry.
So far as Mr. T.M.Bhasin is companycerned numbersuch companyplaint was received.
The requisite clearances had been obtained from various departments and there was numberhing against in the entire service record of Mr. K.V. Chowdary.
Thus, baseless and reckless allegations were repeatedly made by him at every juncture whenever respondent No.2 was selected for any high office.
Copies of the assessment orders and explanatory briefs of record given by CBDT.
132 applications were received.
In the companynter affidavit filed by Mr. T.M. Bhasin, respondent No.3, in the reply companytends that the petition is based upon suppression and false averments have been made.
The information received from the French Government was incomplete in most of the cases.
Respondent No.2 was also involved in M s. Flora and Fauna Housing Development Pvt.
Note that was placed before the Committee, mentioned all the allegations made in three companyplaints and imputation of the factual position received with regard to the same from various agencies like IB, CBI, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance which was summoned by the PMO so as to place the same before the HPC.
The second meeting of the Committee took place on 1.6.2015.
They prepared an Appraisal Report and sent it to the Assessing Officer in the Central Charge.
The best results were achieved in the Delhi region.
Consequently, Mr. Agrawal in order to armtwist the officers of the incometax department and by way of intimidation had been companysistently writing unfounded and baseless companyplaints against certain targeted officials of the department levelling serious allegations.
He was appointed as Chairman, CBDT, Department of Revenue from 1.8.2014 to 31.10.2014.
Further companymunication dated 4.11.2010 was required to be sent.
The respondent states that the relevant APAR of Mr. Malay Mukherjee, the then GM, Indian Bank for the period 200910, duly appraised by Mr. V.Ram Gopal Executive Director was received on November 15, 2010, and he, as reviewing authority, companycurred with Average Rating Appraisal done by Mr. V. Ram Gopal and it was sent to the DFS in companypliance with the letter dated 4.11.2010.
With respect to the allegation of tampering with APAR of Mr. Malay Mukherjee, respondent No.3 received a letter from Ms. Sumita Dawara, Director of Financial Services dated 4.11.2010 to send details of Annual Performance Appraisal Reports APAR of eligible GMs for selection as Executive Director by 15.11.2010 on an urgent basis.
Thus, he was a Member Inv CBDT from 12.10.2012 to 31.10.2014.
The Committee headed by Cabinet Secretary shortlisted 12 names of CVC and 10 names for V.C. However, details of all 131 applicants which included work experience, ACR grading wherever applicable, vigilance clearance, age criteria, experience in the matter relating to vigilance, policy making and administration were placed before the Committee HPC.
An effort has been made to somehow indict the answering respondent by placing reliance on a letter Annexure P3 in which false statements were made about the answering respondents service record that three senior officers of CBDT made serious adverse remarks in his performance appraisal reports.
The record of the discussion in the meeting had also been placed on record and was signed by all present.
The decision was taken by the Assessing Officer and the Additional Commissioner in whom the power vested.
and had also made several presentations on the action taken by the Income Tax Department before the Joint Parliamentary Committee.
Bailable warrants were issued on 6.2.2012 as service of summons was intentionally evaded by Mr. Anil Agarwal.
In the writ petition filed by the Centre for Integrity, Governance, and Training in Vigilance Administration and another, a prayer has been made to direct the Union of India and or its instrumentalities to provide for minimum number of years of knowledge and experience in the field of vigilance for being appointed as CVC or VC.
The clearance of respondent No.3 had been made by the CVC also and CVC has given the clearance in which it was opined that there was numberhing adverse against the answering respondent.
Ltd., it is companytended in the companynter affidavit filed by respondent No.2 that a search was companyducted by the Criminal Investigation Division of the Income Tax Department on the Ponty Chadda Group on 1.2.2012.
Respondent Nos.
The same was advisory in nature and number a penalty.
He had also experience in the Insurance Sector having worked for nearly five years as a Director on the Board of United India Insurance Company.
Thus after receipt of reply matter stood companycluded.
That during his 37 years long Banking career he has an impeccable record of integrity, sincerity, honesty, and dedication towards duty.
As such petition suffers from suppressio veri, suggestio falsi.
The file was sent to the Hon.
It is apparent that Mr. Anil Agrawal was making reckless allegations and was guilty of suppresio veri and suggestio falsi.
It is companytended that he had never discussed the cases of Mr. Moin Qureshi or stock guru with the then Director of CBI or during any such meeting.
It was filed by the Deputy Director of Income Tax Investigation , Headquarters, New Delhi, before ACMM, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi.
This can be verified from the registers of said offices.
The same was approved by the Commission and was carried out by the Government of India.
During the relevant year also two cases were reported.
The Chargesheet was filed before the Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram.
Since respondent No.2 was involved in stock guru scam and gave favourable report to Mr. M.Qureshi the credentials of respondent No.2 companyld number be said to be proper and trustworthy.
Respondent Nos.2 and 3 were found to be eligible.
He has got about 8 years of experience as a Whole Time Director in two Public Sector Banks, companyprising of Executive Director ED from November 2007 to March 2010 in UBI and as Chairman and Managing Director of the Indian Bank for the period 20102015.
However other cases of telecom companypanies were within the jurisdictions of DGsIT Inv , Mumbai, Chennai, Bengaluru etc.
It was number a case of fabrication or forging the APAR at all as suggested by the petitioners.
Complaints by other public institutions smack of venom against several political persons.
The answering respondent has offered companyments to the aforesaid effect.
The companyrt has taken companynizance of the companyplaint.
Criminology and Forensic Science and iv CAIIB.
Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned companynsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the appointment of respondent Nos.2 and 3 as per mandate of this Court in Centre for PIL supra , respondent Nos.2 and 3 companyld number be termed as persons of impeccable integrity, companysequently they companyld number be said to be fit to hold the office of CVC and VC in the absence of Lokpal is required to discharge important functions and to ensure that functionaries versed with integrity in the interest of the nation companysidering the higher responsibilities.
Consent waiver mechanism was devised by the respondent which was an innovative action.
Ltd. which was associated with Mr. Ponty Chadha CBI report in Stock Guru scam involving income tax officers.
It was also urged that respondent No.2 did number actively investigate the foreign accounts in HSBC Bank, Geneva.
Gold Medalist, ii LLB, MBA Finance from Delhi University, iii Topper in the Delhi University in the flagship oneyear programme viz.
However, during vigilance inquiry which was companyducted by respondent No.1, mentioned as to the companyplaint with regard to Mr. Malay Mukherjee and said fact was mentioned under the heading of vigilance clearance.
There was quid pro quo between them since respondent No.2 was given clean chit in stock guru scam and in turn income tax department in its appraisal report of Mr. Qureshi gave clean chit to Mr. Ranjit Sinha.
With respect to the allegations regarding the handling of accounts in the HSBC Bank it is pointed out in the companynter affidavit by respondent No.2 that information regarding certain bank accounts held by persons of Indian origin in HSBC, Geneva was obtained by the Government CBDT from French Government relating to about 628 persons around June 2011.
He had also met him and his predecessor in their respective offices in North Block and in CBI Headquarters several times on official work.
It amounts to a proxy war by Mr. Anil Agrawal through the petitioners and other public functionaries.
He has number issued a direction as suggested on behalf of the petitioners rather approval was sought by the assessing officer as the stake was high and appraisal report was prepared by the earlier DGIT level and she had companysidered it appropriate to seek the approval so as to allay the apprehension of companypliance in future.
The case was still pending.
With respect to the allegations regarding Mr. Moin Qureshi, it is companytended in the companynter affidavit filed by respondent No.2 that he was a taxpayer in Delhi whose cases were investigated by the Delhi Directorate by companyducting search on 15.2.2014.
In the facts of the case, we find that allegation raised with respect to favour being meted out to M s. Flora and Fauna Housing Land Development P Ltd. at the instance of respondent No.2 has been companysidered by HSBC and number at all substantiated from the material on record.
The answering respondent met the Director at his residence on a companyple of occasions for some official work.
It was further stated that initially he was given five years tenure as Chairman Managing Director of the Indian Bank from 1.4.2010 to 31.3.2015.
No companyplaint was received against Mr. T.M.Bhasin.
Not only the companyplaints documents but a brief summary of the companyplaints and the inputs obtained from various agencies including the gist of the numbere for Mr. K.V. Chowdary were also placed before the Committee.
This did number suit the interest of Mr. Anil Agarwal.
His record was excellent with rich experience and has been found fit by the High Power Committee in an objective manner after duly companysidering the various aforesaid objections which were raised in the representations filed by Mr. Anil Kumar Agarwal.
The companysequential judicial proceedings were still pending.
They prepared an appraisal report and sent it to the assessing officer in the Central charge.
The allegations are based on companyjectures and surmises.
This Court had passed an order on 8.12.2014 in which this Court has number expressed any dissatisfaction regarding the nature of work of the Investigation Division much less in respect of the work of the answering respondent.
The judicial functions were to be exercised by the entire officers and the CBDT only provides the necessary guidance and monitors the progress.
2 and 3 companyld number be said to be suitable for the posts in question.
The Union of India has submitted following files for our perusal Minutes of the meeting of the Selection Committee held on 23.5.2015 and 1.6.2015 Meeting numberice and agenda for the first meeting of HPC held on 23.5.2015 Meeting numberice and agenda for the Selection Committee meeting held on 1.6.2015 Folder G companytaining IB reports Folder I vigilance clearance from the Department of Financial Services and CVC Representations and letters submitted against the appointment of respondent Nos.2 and 3 Complaints and inputs on the same placed before the Committee Annexure E companytaining the record of CVC, DoPT, DFS in the case of respondent No.3 regarding his role in APAR of Mr. Malay Mukherjee Income tax record regarding assessment proceedings of M s. Flora and Fauna Housing and Land Development Pvt.
No wrongdoing, numbershortcoming was found by any authority in the action of respondent No.2 when 13 allegations were made by Mr. Anil Kumar Agarwal against respondent No.2.
The petition has number been filed with due diligence.
It is apparent that numberdirection had been issued by respondent No.2 for number making the addition.
On 23.5.2015, a companymunication was received from the PMO companytaining extracts of all allegations from a representation made by one of the members of the Common Cause vide his letter dated 20.5.2015 and requesting for inputs on the said allegations against Mr. K.V. Chowdary.
The agenda placed before the Committee companytained all the details including vigilance details of shortlisted applicants.
Such power was rightly exercised by respondent No.3 to write APAR in the capacity of reviewing officer to make a remark in the APAR.
The above letters and companyments of the agencies companycerned were placed before the Committee.
Respondent No.2 agreed with the companyclusion of the aforesaid officers.
His work, companyduct, and integrity had always been rated at the highest level, ACRs.
It was number companyducted by respondent No.2.
The allegations are number supported by any evidence whatsoever.
In Let us Share annual publication of CBDT many cases with which answering respondent was associated were reported year after year.
When the various departments have number found anything against answering respondent and after respondent No.
Certain senior income tax officers had taken a bribe to favour two scamsters of Stock Guru and had misappropriated about Rs.40 crores.
The representations were submitted from time to time.
recorded by a wide range of officers over a period of years bear sufficient testimony.
Mr. Anil Agrawal had written hundreds of letters against answering respondent No.2 when he was being companysidered for the post of Member, CBDT, Chairman, CBDT and finally while being companysidered for the post of CVC.
Being satisfied with the performance of the Bank during the said period, his tenure was further extended by Appointment Committee of the Cabinet vide Government numberification dated 27.3.2015 from 1.4.2015 up to the date of his superannuation i.e. 31.5.2016.
The allegations are unfounded, made by busybodies with sinister motives.
The decision taken by the Committee to appoint them was unanimous.
Many cases investigated under his supervision finally led to detection and assessment of substantial undisclosed income and criminal prosecutions.
Petitioners have number substantiated by any record their allegations that some cases have been mutually and improperly settled.
He has produced the record which this Court had directed and companytended that on the basis of representations filed by Mr. Anil Kumar Agrawal and others, were looked into, reports were called from companycerned departments, viz.,
When it became clear that there was numberpossibility of getting further information the assessing officer companyld go ahead with making assessment including the prosecution.
It is number open within parameters of judicial review as laid down in Centre for PIL supra to make interference in the appointments made unanimously by the High Power Committee on due companysideration of entire material.
There was numberprocedural irregularity or illegality.
The HPC in its meeting dated 23.5.2015 shortlisted six candidates for the post of CVC and 2 candidates for the post of Vigilance Commissioner and called for inputs on the representations.
of Mr. V. Chowdary for the period from 1978 to 201314.
Only an observation was made to be cautious.
While companypleting the assessment for the relevant assessment year.
The allegations were probed by the companypetent authority and numberirregularity whatsoever was found.
It is pointed out that at the time of his present selection he was the longest serving Seniormost Chairman Managing Director in Public Sector Banks.
for the purpose of making presentations and meetings on behalf of the IncomeTax Department, DGIT Investigation , Delhi was appointed as the Nodal authority.
In addition to the above qualifications, he had a wide and varied experience in Banking where he joined as a Probationary Officer in 1978 and in companyrse of time got due promotions and reached the level of General Manager in 2003.
Very few may be 15 to 20 officers hold such record in the IRS at all times put together.
The relevant APAR of Mr. Malay Mukherji duly apprised by Mr. Ram Gopal, Executive Director was received on 15.11.2010.
In the case of M s. Sanjay Parwal and other companynected cases companyplaints were found to be baseless and unfounded and the outcome of armtwisting tactics.
Respondent No.2 was adjudged one of the best Probationers during training and was awarded silver medal, was promoted out of turn from Deputy Commissioner of Income tax to Joint CIT on being graded as outstanding by UPSC.
With respect to the appointment of VC, Mr. T.M.Bhasin learned companynsel has urged that he was indicted in a detailed inquiry by the CVC in 2013 for forging and tampering with the appraisal report of Mr. Malay Mukherjee, General Manager, Indian Bank.
Thus, the petitioners are guilty of malice in law by stating incorrect facts.
It was mentioned in the companyplaint that false companyplaint had been filed against the officers to damage the reputation against the highly placed authorities.
Letter dated 4.11.2011 was issued by the Department of Financial Services to send the APAR of eligible General Managers for selection as Executive Director by 15.11.2010 on urgent basis.
It was urged by learned companynsel that respondent No.2 had companynections with Mr. Ranjit Sinha, former CBI Director.
The opinion was reiterated by the then VC which was approved by the CVC, however, Department of Financial Services said that the matter ought to be closed and Mr. Bhasin was cautioned.
The investigation apart from leading to detection of undisclosed incomes and assets had led to the filing of prosecution proceedings against certain persons.
With respect to Mr. K.V.Chowdary companyplaints were placed before the Committee along with the facts and true position regarding the allegations.
He has taken the Court in extensive details with respect to the procedure adopted with the help of record.
He is i an M.Sc.
Appraisal report was prepared by the I.O. and sent to assessing officer who initiated assessment proceedings.
At each stage of new appointment assignment above, all necessary clearances had been obtained by DFS from the CVC, CBI, DoPT and other companycerned departments and agencies.
Another companyplaint received by the CBI relates to the case of M s. Flora and Fauna Housing and Land Development Pvt.
A reply on ACR was received on 29.05.2015 and is part of the record that was placed before the Committee.
Answering respondent had quickly responded and brought harmony between the investigating officers and the taxpayer to facilitate further investigation.
Thus, it was made an issue private and personal to them.
Mr. Anil Kumar Agrawal has annexed the ground against respondent No.2.
This Court has never expressed dissatisfaction or inadequacy regarding the functioning.
Per companytra, Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan learned senior companynsel companytended on behalf of respondent No.2 that the allegations made in the petition are based upon the incorrect statement and on an imaginary basis and are number supported by any material, they are based upon assumptions made by the petitioners with respect to the integrity of respondent No.2.
The allegations of tampering and forging were found baseless and closed.
The CVC, Department of Revenue and Department of CBDT got the issues enquired and allegations were found to be baseless.
It is further companytended that his application dated 7.8.2014 was duly forwarded by the Department of Revenue along with his ACRs.,
With respect to Stock Guru, the investigation was made number by respondent No.2 but by Deputy Director of Incometax Investigation and under Additional Director of Investigation, reporting to Director of Investigation, InvestigationII, Delhi, who in turn reported to the respondent, the then Additional D.G. IG Investigation, Delhi.
He had represented himself as wholetime Director of M s. Dharamal Satyapal Ltd. It was found to be in violation of the provisions of Institute of Chartered Accountants of India Act and a companyplaint was filed by the I.O. Mr. Gaurav Dudeja, DDIT Investigation before the Institute of Chartered Accountants.
Communications were released to media even while the selection process was in progress, it apparently intended to damage the prospects of selection of answering respondent No.2.
Some depositors filed a separate case in a companyrt in Delhi.
This was also a part of the companyplaint made by Shri Prashant Bhushan and based on the investigation inputs received, the matter was found to be unsubstantiated.
It is further companytended by respondent No.1 that the first meeting of the Committee headed by the Prime Minister was held on 23.5.2015 which was attended by the Home Minister and the leader of Congress Legislative Party.
Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned Attorney General for India, companytended that there was absolutely numberhing against Mr. V.Chowdary.
Copy of companyplaint has been placed on record.
3 as Vigilance Commissioner was null and void since there was finding of moral turpitude by the CVC against Mr. T.M.Bhasin which made him unfit to hold the office of Vigilance Commissioner.
It was mentioned that there was numberhing adverse against Mr. Bhasin on that account.
Ultimately I.O. made a reference to the CBI and other agencies.
The Agenda numbere for the second meeting to be held on 1.6.2015 was circulated on 27.5.2015 which included the details of all companyplaints against various candidates including the closed companyplaints.
The factum of closure has been suppressed by the petitioner.
It is further companytended that answering respondent No.2 had authorized the filing of a companyplaint under section 182 IPC against Mr. Anil Agarwal in his capacity as DGIT Investigation with the approval of CBDT.
While companypleting the assessment for the Assessment Year 201213 in March 2014, the Assessing Officer found a suggestion in the Appraisal Report that an addition of an amount of Rs.234 crores be made as unaccounted sales for the period from 01.09.2011 to 22.09.2011 as number acceptable.
The appointments have been made and the challenge is companyfined to the appointments of CVC and VC.
The CVC also has given clearance to Mr. T.M.Bhasin on 2.2.2015.
Under his stewardship as CMD of Indian Bank, the Bank had won various National Awards like the following National Award for excellence in Lending to Micro Enterprises for FY 2012 on 4th April 2013 from Honble President of India.
Inputs from IB were received in PMO on 26.05.2015 and in DoPT on 28.05.2015 and is part of the record that was placed before the Committee.
Ltd. and in waiving off Rs.234 crores and had influenced the decision making by the assessing officer in illegal manner.
Respondent No.3 had applied for the post of Vigilance Commissioner pursuant to a numberification dated 13.10.2014.
They thought it fit to bring it to the numberice of the Commissioner, the Chief Commissioner and even the member involved and to avoid protect themselves from the mischievous companyplaints and since the appraisal report was sent by DGIT.
Accordingly, additional inputs with the gist of the companyplaints regarding Mr. K.V. Chowdary were placed before the Committee in the second meeting held on 1.6.2015.
It companyld number be said that there was anything to blame the outstanding record and high integrity of respondent No.3.
3 had filed a representation matter was dropped.
During the said visit, he met the French authorities dealing with HSBC foreign accounts matters and new lines modes of investigation have been pursued.
Having companysidered the companytents of the letters and the companyments thereon, the Committee was of the view that the allegations were number substantiated.
With respect to allegations of M s. Flora and Fauna Housing Development Pvt.
About 148 names relating to Delhi were passed on to DGIT investigation Delhi, which post was held by answering respondent at that time.
The Prime Ministers Office had asked for inputs on the allegations so made as to ascertain the companyrectness of facts companytained in the representations.
Thus, it was number appropriate for respondent No.2 to meet Mr. Ranjit Sinha.
The said Division was being headed by Smt M. Sailoo, DGIT I CI Delhi at that time.
One of the members of Common Cause had unleashed a slander campaign in the social media and press during the selection process with a view to prejudice the Selection Committee.
On behalf of respondent No.2, it was companytended that search was companyducted by criminal investigation division headed by Smt.
The Committee had taken numbere of inputs received from various investigation and intelligence agencies and after satisfying themselves the allegations were found untenable and that they were the persons of impeccable integrity and satisfied the requirement of law, had recommended the appointments.
Thus the facts make it clear that numberimpropriety has been companymitted by respondent No.2 in the aforesaid factual background and the background on record and he has number directed the assessing officer to proceed in a particular manner but rather various higher authorities had agreed with the assessing officer and thereafter had put up the matter for discussion with the respondent who had also agreed with them.
All necessary investigations were carried out and findings were companymunicated to the Assessing Officers who took appropriate actions.
He had obtained information in respect of 575 cases which were hitherto number available to Indian authorities.
The same was sent on 25.5.2015 to CBI and the Department of Revenue for their inputs.
Respondent No.2 was a Member Investigation , CBDT at that point of time.
Indira Gandhi Rajbhasha Puraskar for 20122013 for South Zone TOLIC from Honble President of India.
Even his criminal prosecution was suggested by one of the Vigilance Commissioners since he had fabricated the APAR of Mr. Malay Mukherjee, the appointment of respondent No.
Record pertaining to income tax assessment of M s. Flora and Fauna Housing and Land Development for the assessment year 201213 companytaining following folders details of which are furnished in the tabular form Sl.
The answering respondent in his capacity as Director General of Income tax Inv Delhi DGIT had granted approval in the year 2011 for initiating criminal prosecution under section 182 IPC against Mr. Agrawal.
All necessary actions including reference to foreign tax authorities, references under Mutual Legal Assistance to Hong Kong, sharing the information with the Enforcement Directorate, DRI, other relevant departments agencies, Department of Financial Services and RBI regarding illegal activities of certain foreign banks, banks were taken in due time and with good results.
The CBDT had numberjurisdiction to instruct the assessing officer to dispose of a case in a particular manner.
The gist with annexures at companyrespondence companytaining plethora of documents of File No.399/15/2014AVDIII was made available.
66 searches were companyducted in Delhi under respondent No.2 whereas total 140 searches were undertaken across the companyntry.
They have relied upon motivated companyplaint by Mr. Anil Agrawal who was seeking pound of flesh from answering respondent for aforesaid reasons.
With respect to the allegations, separate inputs were obtained and placed before the Committee.
First price and Best Bank Award for extending credit to SHGs on 24.02.2014 from Honble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu companysecutively for five years.
He had the personal axe to grind against respondent No.2.
Thus, the aforesaid cast of aspersions upon respondent No.2 by the petitioners has numberbasis.
In the companynter affidavit filed by respondent No.2 it has been stated that since he was heading the Investigation Division of CBDT and in that capacity, he had met the heads of other investigating agencies on several occasions including the Joint Director, CBI, Mr.Ranjit Sinha.
The institute found Mr. Agrawal prima facie guilty of professional misconduct and initiated disciplinary proceedings as per Rule 9 1 of the Chartered Accountants Procedure of Investigations of Professional and other Misconduct and Conduct of Cases Rules, 2007 and decided to proceed under Chapter V of the Rules.
Same has been placed on record.
For perjury, the petitioners be prosecuted.
The CBI also found numberhing adverse against Mr. Chowdary in 2G scam cases or Radia tapes companysequent upon the order dated 21.2.2013 of this Court.
The name of respondent No.2 did number figure in the First Information Report filed by the CBI.
With respect to the allegation regarding Radia Tapes when answering respondent No.2 had joined as DGIT Investigations on 1.11.2010, the surveillance of Ms. Nira Radia was over.
For perjury, petitioners be prosecuted.
Since then, Mr. Agrawal had started personally attacking, writing a volley of frivolous and vexatious companyplaints to many authorities in the Government etc.
The matter was before this Court.
Various other files as to matter in question as prayed by the Common Cause Society have also been produced.
During this period the case of Unitech Ltd., whose associate sister companycern was granted telecom licence and few companynected cases of other telecom companypanies being investigation in other charges were investigated in the Delhi Directorate by DIT Inv I who functioned under him.
Clearances were obtained and it was found that there was numbermerit in the aforesaid objections which were raised in the representations and the Committee has taken a unanimous decision, with respect to suitability vigilance clearance has been obtained.
He had also headed the Indian Banks Association as a Chairman and was also Chairman of the Indian Institute of Banking Personnel Selection and was also President of the Indian Institute of Banking Finance IIBF since 2014.
It was received on 10.11.2010 by respondent No.3.
In that capacity, he monitored the cases across the companyntry.
About 121 prosecutions were launched by 31.3.2015 and some more were in progress when the answering respondent left.
Requisite clearances were given by the IB with respect to Mr. K.V.Chowdary and Mr. T.M.Bhasin.
Respondent No.2 had number taken any decision.
4 Folder 4 1786 Notices issued by the AO to the assessee, replies filed by the assessee, Notices Summons issued to other persons, statement of persons recorded during assessment proceedings, draft assessment order submitted by the AO to his Additional Commissioner for statutory approval, approval given by the Additional Commissioner, the Assessment Order passed by the AO, demand numberice issued etc.
Mr. Agrawal had supplied false and motivated information to one of the members of the Common Cause and other political functionaries to initiate frivolous and vexatious proceedings.
Certain allegations were made against the IO of stock guru namely Yogender Mittal, DDIT Investigation .
Regarding the visits to Mr. Ranjit Sinha, Director, CBI, it is companytended that respondent No.2 was heading the Investigation Division of CBDT and in that capacity, he had met the heads of other investigating agencies including the then Director, CBI.
With respect to Mr. K.V. Chowdary, it was mentioned in the agenda numbere that other inputs will be placed before the Committee during the meeting as some inputs were awaited.
It was also urged by learned companynsel that in order to ensure a transparent procedure for an appointment it is necessary the persons who have been empanelled should be disclosed to the public so that it can send information in respect of such persons to the Government.
Folder 4 companytains numberices issued by the Assessing Officer to the assessee, replies etc.
Since discrepancy was found in the appraisal report it was identified that it was a mistake companymitted by the accountant in posting cumulative sales of various depots in the month of September 2011 in actual sales.
The aforesaid averment is wrong and false and afterthought.
National Award to Banks FY 2013 First Prize for Excellence in lending to Micro Enterprises on 01.03.2014 from Honble Prime Minister of India.
Video companyferencing were also held.
Mr. Ranjit Sinha, Director, CBI, was investigating Stock Guru scam where senior income tax officers were involved in which Mr. Sinha was investigating the role of respondent No.2.
The assessing officer on a suggestion in the appraisal report that addition of an amount of Rs.234 crores be made as the accounted sale from 1.9.2011 to 22.9.2011 as number acceptable since appraisal report was prepared by a team of aforesaid DGsIT.
The said allegation levelled by Mr. Anil Agrawal had been looked into by the companycerned authorities and numberirregularity whatsoever was found.
As a result of persistent follow up, further information has been received in 575 cases in the last week of February 2015.
It is further companytended by respondent No.2 in reply that while he was posted as Director General of Income tax Investigation , Delhi from 1.11.2010 to 28.8.2012 and further from 29.8.2012 to 29.7.2014 he was posted as Member, CBDT.
The High Power Committee along with reports of various authorities, Department of Revenue, CBI and Intelligence Bureau had examined the allegations which belie the companyrectness of the unfounded allegations.
In the newspaper report dated 15.4.2014 name of respondent No.2 was number mentioned, numbersupervisory failure was attributed.
They had companyrdinated with other DGsIT and other investigating agencies including CBI, ED etc.
In Folder 7 the aforesaid stand is fully substantiated by the document that has been placed on record.
integrity certificate and vigilance clearance including a certificate that numberdisciplinary or criminal proceedings were either pending or companytemplated against him.
Same is number substantiated by any material and is simply stated to be rejected.
Respondent No.3 has an excellent academic record and vast experience and expertise in the field of banking.
Respondent No.3 as reviewing authority companycurred with the average grading done by Mr. V.Ram Gopal, Executive Director.
With respect to the allegation of failure to make any headway in 2G scam investigation, it was submitted that answering respondent No.2 worked as DGIT Investigation Delhi from 1.11.2010 to August 2012.
On a companysideration of the facts, the Assessing Officer came to a companyclusion that there is numbercase for an addition and passed the Assessment Order under IT Act with the approval of the Additional Commissioner.
The CBDT passedon the said information to the respective DGsIT 13 in numbers situated across the companyntry.
Approved assessment order submitted by A.O. to Additional Commissioner for his approval.
Department of Revenue MoF IB CBI etc.
In this companytext he only begged to submit and bring to the numberice of this Court the following observations of SIT in its 3rd Report Shri K.V. Chowdary Advisor to CBDT and former Chairman, CBDT carried out detailed investigation and visited Paris in December 2014.
In a meeting held on 22.3.2014, DCIT Assessing Officer , the Additional Commissioner and Chief Commissioner apprised respondent No.2, Member Investigation that they were of the view that numberaddition of Rs.234 crores was warranted as there was numberevidence to suggest much less to approve that an accounted sale to that extent took place in the span of 21 days from 1.9.2011 to 22.9.2011.
The gist included the details and the inputs received from various agencies like CBI, IB, and Department of Revenue.
Actionable issues were identified and necessary action was taken either by the Delhi Directorate or was companymunicated to other Directorates for further action.
As a part of such investigation, fresh references under Double Taxation Avoidance Convention DTAC were made by bthe CBDT to France in 605 cases, requesting for additional information.
A search companyducted on 6.1.2011 led to the seizure of Rs.34.69 crores in cash.
In a meeting held on 28.03.2014, the DCIT the Assessing Officer , the Additional Commissioner, Commissioner and the Chief Commissioner apprised the Memberinvestigation that they were of the view that numberaddition of Rs.234 crores was warranted as there was numberevidence to suggest, much less to prove that unaccounted sales to that extent took place in the span of 21 days from 1.9.2011 to 22.9.2011.
A verbatim extract of the remarks of the reporting and reviewing officers has been annexed as R2/1 to the companynter affidavit.
Said officers were working under respondent No.2.
As he was prosecuted as per the approval granted by respondent No.2 and disciplinary proceedings had also been initiated by the Institute of Chartered Accountants, on that basis respondent No.2 had deposed against him in a criminal case pending in the companyrt at Delhi.
In the meeting dated 9.4.2015, the Committee went through the relevant record, scrutinized all the applications and examined the experience of each candidate and shortlisted a panel of 12 names for the post of CVC and 10 names for the post of VC for placing before Selection Committee for companysideration.
This Court in companynection with companyl mines allotment case i.e. W.P. Civil No.463 of 2012 directed filing of investigation report relating to involvement of certain persons and report was filed on 16.10.2014 in a sealed companyer before this Court on 17.10.2014.
All these facts have number been examined by the Union of India before making appointment of CVC as such same is liable to be quashed.
The appointment of Mr. K.V. Chowdary, CVC, respondent No.2 has been assailed.
Approval was given by the Additional Commissioner.
Facts have number been verified by filing applications under the RTI Act or some other legal means.
As a part of such investigation, fresh references under Double Taxation Avoidance Convention DTAC were made by the CBDT to France in 605 cases, requesting for additional information.
However, on 3.6.2013 the CBI started an investigation into the companyduct of the then I.O. of Stock Guru, that is Mr. Yogender Mittal, who was DIG Investigation.
It was also pointed out that respondent No.2 was the only DGIT Investigation who submitted the proposal for the prosecution against the companycerned foreign banks and its Indian affiliates, and persons companycerned.
The DoPT has again called the applications vide companymunication dated 13.10.2014 for CVC.
It was pointed out that the due procedure has been adopted for appointments of CVC and VC and has produced the various files for perusal of this Court.
After obtaining their companysent, the Warrants of Appointment were handed over personally to both Mr. V.Chowdary and Mr. T.M.Bhasin and the order on oath was also sent to CVC on 8.6.2015.
No such allegation was ever made in the Court.
It is number brought on record that the background numbere submitted jointly by the DCIT, Additional CIT, CIT and CCIT and the record of the discussion in the meeting which clearly mentioned that the answering respondent had only companycurred with the prior decision of the officers companycerned of number making the addition on that issue.
President of India through MOS PP and then by the PMO on 5.6.2015 companytaining the agenda as well as the gist of the companyplaints which was received from the Presidents Secretariat on 8.6.2015 along with the Warrants of Appointment and order of oath.
Since the formation of SIT the income tax department had number filed even a single prosecution against HSBC account holders.
The facts of the case and the findings have been submitted to the Government from time to time.
followed up the cases by holding weekly meetings, guidance, suggestions, interaction.
Two replies were received from the Department of Revenue on 27.05.2015 and is part of the record that was placed before the Committee.
As per procedure, the Assessing Officer and Additional Commissioner in the Central Charge who were number companyvinced of the companyrectness of the suggestion of bringing the sum of Rs.234 crores to tax as unaccounted sales companysulted the ICI Division, who stated that the matter may be decided as per Law after taking into companysideration the seized material, Appraisal Report, and Submissions of the assessee.
Petitioners have number explained the basis.
There were three representations companyplaints against Mr. V.Chowdary.
Ltd. about an unaccounted income of Rs.234 crores.
On 1.6.2015 a letter from the Department of Revenue was received stating that numberadverse remarks have been found in the Appraisal Performance Report of available ACRs.
During his tenure as Member Inv the number of cases in which prosecution proceedings were launched, went up from 149 to 669 and further offences companypounded increased from 83 to 900.
The Investigation Division prepared appraisal reports and sent them to their assessing officers for further action such as assessment of income, recovery of tax, levy of penalty, initiation of prosecution proceedings in appropriate cases.
Letter dated 26.5.2015 of another public functionary regarding Mr. K.V. Chowdary was also placed before the Committee.
The allegations made fall short of the minimum standard of credibility.
The Committee companysidered all the allegations against all shortlisted candidates including Mr. K.V.Chowdary and Mr. M.Bhasin and unanimously decided to appoint them as Chief Vigilance Commissioner and Vigilance Commissioner respectively.
Respondent No.2 was number subjected to an investigation by the CBI.
Further, the proceedings were instituted by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India based on a companyplaint filed by an officer working under the answering respondent.
Answering respondent got 66 searches companyducted relating to these cases as against a total 140 searchers, in such cases across the companyntry each case may relate to more than one name .
The following replies were received The reply of CBI was received on 29.05.2015 and is part of the record that was placed before the Committee.
Allegations were number found substantiated.
The CVC, Department of Revenue and CBDT had also got this issue enquired and apparently dismissed the allegations made against respondent No.2 as baseless.
His duties included overall supervision of investigations under the direct tax laws and formulation of policies relating to direct taxes.
It is further companytended that the details of the companyplaints including the closed companyplaints against Mr. T.M. Bhasin along with inputs in relation to the same were also part of the agenda at para 3.7 and Annexure E which was placed before the Committee.
With respect to allegations regarding stock guru it is companytended in the companynter affidavit of respondent No.2 that stock guru and the persons involved who were running a Ponzi scheme was investigated by the Deputy Director of Income Tax Investigation under an Additional Director of Investigation reporting to Director of Investigation InvestigationII, Delhi who in turn reported to the answering respondent as the then DGIT Investigation Delhi.
There was absolutely numberhing against respondent No.2.
In response to the aforesaid, the Department of Financial Services wrote to the Commission that departmental action may number stand scrutiny of law.
It is further companytended by respondent that he had investigated, supervised and monitored several cases of large business houses, politically sensitive persons, and bureaucrats holding very high offices, scams including 2G, companymonwealth games and persons who were allocated companyl blocks, chit fund scams, undisclosed foreign bank accounts including in HSBC, Geneva etc.
It was companytended by learned companynsel on behalf of respondent No.2 that the information regarding bank accounts held by the persons of Indian origin in HSBC, Geneva was obtained by the Government CBDT from French Government relating to approximately 628 persons around June 2011.
Name of the answering respondent did number figure anywhere in the FIR filed by the CBI number there was any allegation of any wrong doing against him.
In the case of P.J. Thomas incriminating material against him was number placed before the High Power Committee HPC and as such this Court had made interference.
None of the authorities found any shortcomings or inaction on his part on this companynt.
This advertisement numberification appeared in the newspapers and on the Government website.
M. Saillo, DGIT, Delhi.
The petition is based mainly on the representations made by Mr. Anil Kumar Agrawal who represented the grievances of one of his client M s. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd., searched by the Investigation Wing Unit II on 21.1.2011 when he was serving as DGIT Inv , Delhi.
Income tax department gave a clean chit to Mr. Ranjit Sinha in respect of Mr. Moin Qureshi and CBI gave a clean chit to respondent No.2.
