Holding

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had jurisdiction because a part of the cause of action arose in Andhra Pradesh, and that the officials’ actions were bonafide, denying compensation but directing issuance of procedural guidelines.

Summary

The appellant, a computer engineer, travelled from Hyderabad to Chennai carrying Rs 65 lakhs in cash, disclosing the amount and a bank certificate to airport security. Although cleared at Hyderabad, he was intercepted at Chennai, detained for about 15 hours, and his cash was seized under the Income Tax Act; the incident was prematurely disclosed to the media, tarnishing his reputation. The Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed his writ petition on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, directing him to approach the Chennai court. The Supreme Court held that under Article 226(2) the High Court had jurisdiction because a part of the cause of action arose in Andhra Pradesh, notably the initial security action and the initiation of tax proceedings there. While acknowledging that some inconvenience is inevitable in verifying large cash holdings, the Court found the officials’ actions bonafide, denied compensation, but ordered the Central Board of Direct Taxes to issue procedural guidelines to avoid harassment and premature media leaks. The appeal was disposed of, treating the matter as closed.

Issues considered

Whether the Andhra Pradesh High Court had jurisdiction under Article 226(2) when part of the cause of action arose in Andhra Pradesh.
Whether the detention, seizure of cash and media disclosure by Income Tax officials violated the appellant’s fundamental rights and entitled him to compensation.
Whether the actions of the officials were bonafide exercises of statutory powers under the Income Tax Act.
Whether procedural guidelines are required to regulate airport searches and prevent premature media disclosures.

Legislation cited

Income Tax Act, 1961s. 131, s. 132, s. 133A, s. 142(1)

Subjects

jurisdictionArticle 226income taxcash seizureairport securitymedia leakpremature disclosurecompensationprocedural guidelinespassenger rights

Judgment

[2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 1113

RAJENDRAN CHINGARAVELU A
v.
......... MR. R.K. MISHRA, ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF IT & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 7914 of 2009)
NOVEMBER 24, 2009
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, JJ.] B

'
Constitution of India, 1950:

... Article 226(2) - Writ petition - Territorial jurisdiction - A
passenger disclosing at the Hyderabad Airport to security
personnel about carrying huge amount of cash alongwith a c
bank certificate indicating legitimacy of the source - The
passenger allowed to board the plane for Chennai - At
Chennai, the Police Officers pulled the passenger from air craft
and took him for inquiry - lnspite of the explanation of the
passenger about the legitimacy of the funds, he was detained D
for 15 hours at the airport, information released to newspapers
,, ~
and proceedings under Income Tax Act initiated against the
passenger - Writ petition of the passenger in the High Court
of Andhra Pradesh dismissed on the ground that no part of
cause of action arose within the State - HELD: High Court did
not examine whether any part of cause of action arose in Andhra E
Pradesh - Clause (2) of Article 226 makes it clear that the High
Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within
which the cause of action arises wholly or in part, will have
~
jurisdiction - This would mean that even if a small fraction of
.. the cause of action accrued within the territories of Andhra F
Pradesh, the High Court of that State will have jurisdiction - In
the instant case, the genesis for the entire episode of search,
seizure and detention of petitioner was action of the security!
intelligence officials at Hyderabad Airport who having
inspected the cash carried by him, alerted their counterparts
G
at the Chennai Airport that petitioner was carrying a huge sum
of money, and required to be intercepted and questioned - A
part of the cause of action, therefore clearly arose in Hyderabad
><,.,
- It is also to be noticed that consequential income tax

1113 H
1114 --SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A proceedings against ttie passenger, which he challenged in the
writ petition, were also initiated at Hyderabad - Therefore, his
writ petition ought not to have been rejected on the ground of •. ~

want of jurisdiction - Investigation/Inquiries.
Investigation/Inquiries:
B Search of air passengers by Air Intelligence Unit/
Investigation Units of Income Tax Department- Air passenger
carrying huge sum of money - lnspite of showing documents
about source and legitimacy of funds, passenger detained,
cash seized and income tax proceedings initiated against him ..,.
c and matter disclosed to media which in tum publicised it - Writ ..4--
petition by passenger seeking compensation and action
against erring officers and newspapers, to quash income tax
proceedings against him and issuance of appropriate
directions for reform and streamlining the procedure relating
to checking of passengers - As regards directions for reform
D
and streamlining the procedure, at the instance of the Court,
Central Board of Direct Taxes issued circular dated 18. 11.2009
):
laying down the procedure tq avoid harassment in the course
of enquiry/search of air passengers by the Air Intelligence
"
!...
Units/Investigation Units of Income Tax Department regarding
E claim of compensation - On the issue of compensation and
action against erring officers for harassment, HELD: When the
bonafides of a passenger carrying an unusually large sum, and
his claims regarding the sources and legitimacy, have to be
verified, some delay and inconvenience is inevitable - The
F inspecting and investigating officers have to make sure that the y
money was not intended for any illegal purpose - In such a
situation, rights of the passenger will have to yield to public "
interest - Even if the carrier is not guilty of any offence in
carrying. the money, the verification or seizure may be
warranted to ensure that the money is n·ot intended for
G commission of a crime or offence - But the appellant's
grievance in regard to media being informed about the incident
even before completion of investigation, is justified - There is
a growing tendency among investigating officers (either police ~
or other departments) to inform the media,· even before the
H completion of investigation, that they have caught a criminal
RAJENDRAN CHINGARAVELU v. R.K. MISHRA, 1115
ADDL. COMMNR. OFIT
or an offender - Such crude attempts to claim credit for A
imaginary investigational breakthroughs should be curbed -
"' ).__.! Premature disclosures or 'leakage' to the media in a pending
investigation will not only jeopardise and impede further
investigation, but many a time, allow the real culprit to escape

-
'
from law - The department's additional affidavit dated
23.11.2009 expressed regret for the inconvenience caused to
the appellant and also assuages the apprehension felt by
B

appellant that he would be harassed for having taken the
department to court - The bonafides of the intelligence wing
~ officials concerned is not open to question, though their
enthusiasm might have exceeded the limits when they went to c
press in regard to the seizure - The remedial action by the
department and the expression of regret serves and achieves
the purpose of appellant filing the writ petition - Appeal is

- I>'
f
disposed of, treating the entire episode as closed -
Constitution of India - Article 226(2) - Media - Premature
leakage of information by investigating agencies to media and
later publicising it.
D

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7914
•' of 2009.
From the Judgment & Order dated 17.06.2008 of thS" High E
Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in WP No. 27344 of
2007.
Rajendran Chingaravelu Appellant-In-Person.
-,J Gopal Subramanium, SG, T.A. Khan, D. Mehta, B.V.
Bala~am Das, for the Respondents . F
• The Order of the Court was delivered by
ORDER
R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J. 1. Leave granted. Heard.
2. The case of the appellant in brief is as follows: The G
appellant, a Computer Engineer, who was lucratively employed
in United States of America for more than ten years, returned to
~
India with his earnings and took up employment in Hyderabad
in the year 2006. He wanted to buy a property at Chennai. But
his attempts were not fruitful. He was advised that if he wanted
H
1116 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A to buy a good plot, he must be ready to pay a considerable part
of the sale price in cash as advance to the prospective seller.
.1...f.-
When the appellant ultimately identified a prospective seller, he
wanted to go to Chennai with a large sum and finalise the deal.
He contacted the Reserve Bank of India, ICICI Bank (his Banker)
and the Airport Authorities to find out whether he can carry a large
B
sum of money in cash, while travelling. He was informed that
there was no prohibition. Thereafter he drew Rs.65 lakhs from
--'
his bank. He travelled by air from Hyderabad to Chennai on
15.6.2007, carrying the said cash. At the Hyderabad Airport, he
"(
disclosed to the security personnel who checked his baggage
c that he was carrying cash of Rs.65 lakhs along with a bank 4

certificate certifying the source and withdrawals. After the
contents of his bags were examined by the security personnel,
he was allowed to board the aircraft without any objection. But ·
when the flight reached Chennai, some police officers and others
D (who were later identified as officers oflncome Tax Investigation '""
Wing) rushed in, loudly called out the name of the appellant. When
appellant identified himself, he was virtually pulled from the ')•

aircraft and taken to an office in the first floor of the airport. He ""
was questioned there about the money he was carrying. The ..
appellant showed them the cash and bank certificate evidencing
E the withdrawals and explained as to how the amounts formed
part of his legitimate declared earnings which were drawn from
his bank's account. He also explained to them the purpose of
carrying such huge amount. The officers recorded his statement.
After a few hours, the second respondent came in and asked
k
F the appellant to sign some papers without allowing him to read
It
them and without furnishing him copies. It became obvious to the
appellant that the officers of the Income Tax Department were
suspecting him of carrying the money illegally. They even
attempted to coerce him to admit that the amount was being
carried by him for some illegal purpose. Having failed, they .....
G seized the entire amount under a mahazar, gave him a receipt
and permitted him to leave. In this process, he was detained for
about 15 hours without any justifiable reason. To add insult to the
injury, the Tax Intelligence Officers prematurely and hurriedly
informed the newspapers, that they had made a big haul of Rs.65
H lakhs in cash, making it appear as though the appellant was
RAJENDRAN CHINGARAVELU v. R.K. MISHRA, 1117
ADDL. COMMNR. OF I T [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
illegally and Clandestinely carrying the said amount, and they had A
successfully caught him while he was at it. The next day all three
....-..;.. leading Tamil newspapers (Daily Thanthi, Dinamalar, Dinamani)
as also an English daily - Hindu, prominently carried the news of
the seizure from him. The news reports disclosed his name,
profession, his native place in Tamil Nadu, his place of
B
employment. The news report also stated that he was not ab.le
to satisfactorily explain the source of the amount and that the
officials had found discrepancies between what was drawn by
him from the bank and what he was carrying. Ultimately, two
t" months later, after completing the investigation and verification,
as nothing was found to be amiss or irregular, the seized money c
was returned to him, but without any interest.
3. The appellant lists the following four acts on the part of
the Income Tax Officials as objectionable and violative of his
fundamental rights : (i) his illegal detention for more than 15 hours
at the Chennai Airport; (ii) illegal seizure of the cash carried by D
him despite his explanation about the source and legitimacy of
the funds with supporting documents; (iii) failure . to return the
""'" seized amount for more than two months without any justification;
and (iv) prematurely and maliciously disclosing to the media a
completely false picture of the incident. The said acts, according
E
to him, tarnished his reputation among his friends, relatives and
acquaintances, by being dubbed as some sort of a criminal.
Being aggrieved, he filed a writ petition 0NP No.27344/2007)
in the High Court of Andhra Prade$h in December, 2007 seeking
..,. several reliefs. He sought action against the Income Tax officials
and the newspapers. He also sought compensation for the illegal F ~
.... ' acts, and quashing of the proceedings initiated against him
under Income Tax Act. He sought appropriate directions for
reforming and streamlining the procedure relating to checking
of passengers. He also sought some consequential reliefs. He
impleaded four officers of the Income Tax department, the G
Director of the Hyderabad Airport and the editors of the three
Tamil newspapers as respondents.
4. The said writ petition was dismissed by the High Court
"" on 17.6.2008 on the ground that no part of the cause of action·
arose within Andhra Pradesh. The c:.0ntentions raised by the
H
1118 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A appellant were not considered. The court directed the appellant
to approach the appropriate court at Chennai. The said order is )
,.1.... . . .
challenged in this appeal by special leave.
5. The first question that arises for consideration is whether
the Andhra Pradesh High Court was justified in holding that as
B the seizure took place at Chennai (Tamil Nadu), the appellant
could not maintain the writ petition before it. The High Court .. did
not examine whether any part of cause of action arose in Andhra
Pradesh. Clause (2) of Article 226 makes it clear that the High
Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within ....
which the cause of action arises wholly or in part, will have
c jurisdiction. This would mean that even if a small fraction of the
...:.

cause of action (that bundle of facts which gives a petitioner, a
right to sue) accrued within the territories of Andhra Pradesh, the
High Court of that State will have jurisdiction. In this case, the
genesis for the entire episode of search, seizure and detention
0 was the action of the security/ intelligence officials at Hyderabad
Airport (in Andhra Pradesh) who having inspected the cash
carried by him, alerted their counterparts at the Chennai Airport ~
that appellant was carrying a huge sum of money, and required
to be intercepted and questioned. A part of the cause of action
E therefore clearly arose in Hyderabad. It is also to be noticed that
the consequential income tax proceedings against liim, which
,he challenged in the writ petition, were also initiated at
Hyderabad. Therefore, his writ petition ought not to have been
rejected on the ground of want of jurisdiction.
6. Normally, we would have set aside the order and remitted r
F
the niatter to the High Court for decision on merits. But from the ;-
....
persuasive submissions of the appellant, who appeared in
person on various dates of hearing, two things stood out. Firstly,
it was clear that the main object of the petition was to ensure that
at least in future, passengers like him are not put to unnecessary
G harassment or undue hardship at Airports'. He wants a direction
for issuance of clear guidelines and instructions to the inspecting
officers, and introduction of definite and efficient verification/
investigation procedures. He wants changes in the present ,,)'..'

protocol where the officers are uncertain of what to do and seek
H instructions and indefinitely wait for clearances from higher ,ups
RAJENDRAN CHINGARAVELU v. R.K. MISHRA, 1119
ADDL. COMMNR. OF I T [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
for each and every routine step, resulting in the detention of A
passengers for hours and hours. In short, he wants the enquiries,
: .. verifications and investigations to be efficient, passenger-friendly
and courteous. Secondly, he wants the department/concerned
officers to acknowledge that he was unnecessarily harassed.
7. As the first issue required a decision at the level of the 8
concerned Ministry and Central Board of Direct Taxes, instead
of remitting the matter to the High Court, we requested Mr. Gopal
Subramanium, the learned Solicitor General to take notice and

.. suggest a solution. He agreed to have the matter examined as
to whether there was a need for issue of guidelines .
c
• 8. Taking note of the issue, the Central Board of Direct
Taxes, Ministry of Finance has issued a circular dated
18.11.2009 setting out the guidelines to be followed by Air
Intelligence Units or Investigation Units while dealing with air
passengers with valuables at the airports of embarkation or
destination, to avoid any undue inconvenience to them. The said .D
circular is extracted below :
,,,-Y
"Subject : Avoiding harassment in the course of enquiry/
search of the air passengers by the Air Intelligence Units/
Investigation Units of the Income Tax Department._
E
Detailed procedure regarding enquiry and identification of
the passengers at the airports for action under section 132
of the Act has been laid down in the Search & Seizure
Manual, 2007 (pp.92-95 of Volume-I). Instances have come
to the notice of the Board where some of the passengers
~
have allegedly felt harassed. In view of this, the following F
, guidelines are laid down in this regard, which he followed
strictly by Air Intelligence Units or Investigation Units while
dealing with air passengers at the airports of embarkation
or destination:
(i) On the basis of information through the scanner G
in check-in-area and security hold area, further
enquiry/action under section 131 /132/133A of the
Income tax Act, 1961 may be conducted within the
·;!(_
time available before the departure of the flight of the
passenger(s). Alternatively, the information may be
H
1120 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A passed on quickly to the Air Intelligence Unit at the
Airport of destination and, in case there is no Air
Intelligence Unit at the airport of destination, to the
local Investigation Unit. On getting such information,
the recipient Unit will carry out necessary enquiries
as quickly as possible so as to intercept the
B
passenger at the exit of the destination airport.
(ii) When the passenger is intercepted at the airport
of destination and his statement is recorded to
ascertain the accounted or unaccounted nature of the
cash, bullion, jewellery etc., being carried by him, the _., .
c Unit recording the statement may not wait for the
_

conclusion of the statement before taking steps to
obtain warrant of authorization from the concerned
Authority. As soon as the information is sufficient to
infer that the assets are unaccounted, the concerned
D authority may be contacted and the information may
be furnished to him for obtaining warrant of
authorisation.
(iii) For issuing such warrant of authorisation, the
Director of Income-Tax (Investigation) should carry
E blank forms and his official seal. Before issuing such
authorisations, he may try to obtain the
administrative approval from the Director General of
Income-tax (Investigation) telephonically. In case he
is not able to contact him, he should still issue the
authorisation under his statutory powers without loss
F
of time. Such warrant of authorisation may be
communicated expeditiously.
(iv) The statement may be recorded in the language
which the passenger understands. The statement
should invariably be read to him befofe asking for
G
his signature. He should be given full opportunity to
go through the statement, questions as well as
answers, before putting his signature and to make :;,._-
amendments under his signature if there is variation
in what he said and what was recorded. It should be
H
RAJENDRAN CHINGARAVELU v. R.K. MISHRA, 1121
ADDL. C'OMMNR. OF I T [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]

......... ensured that what is recorded is stated voluntarily A
without any coercion. At the end of the statement, the
passenger should be requested to write in his own
handwriting that it was given voluntarily and it
..... recorded truthfully what was stated by him .
-1
(v) The procedure regarding administering of oath B
may be duly followed.
(vi) The pr9ceedings of enquiry and actior:i may be
-).,.,.
completed as expeditiously as possible. In the
. ~
course of these proceedings, the passenger should
be provided drinking water, tea, snacks and food in c
case the passenger desires the same. He should
also be provided medical assistance in case it is
~ required.
'
(vii) In case the seizure involves bullion or jewellery,
y
the services of an approved valuer should be D
)II' obtained expeditiously. For this purpose, while
... r
granting approval under section 34AB of the Wealth
Tax Act, the Chief Commissioners/Director Generals
should put a condition that the approved valuer shall
be available for providing his services at any time,
at any place, at any place, at short notice and even E
at odd hours.
(viii) On the conclusion of the search, the passenger
-J..
should be dropped at the place he wants to go in the
..,
government vehicle, if he makes a request on the
ground of security etc. F
__.. (ix) The officer would take adequate precautions and
steps to ensure that enquiry/investigation undertaken
(
at the airports is kept confidential and any premature
disclosure to the media (prinUelectronic) is avoided."
G'.
The Directors General of Income-tax (Inv.) and
'<;._ Directors of Income-tax (Inv.) are requested to
ensure that these guidelines are complied with by all
the concerned authorities."
[Note : Instruction (ix) is being added to the notification dated
H
t·

1122 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (A.DDL.) S.C.R.

A 18.11.2009 by issuing an amendment, as stated in the y ,..
department's Additional affidavit dated 23.11.2009]
9. In regard to the merits of the case and the claim for
compensation~ the learned Solicitor General submitted that
~
whatever action was taken by the security/intelligence officials
B at Hyderabad and Chennai Airports, was in the line of duty. He
submitted that a legitimate suspicion was created in the mind
of the officers on account of appellant carrying an unusually large
sum of money in cash; that even though the appellant offered ......
a
some explanation and produced bank certificate in regard to ~-
'I-
withdrawals, they required to .be verified. He submitted that two
c factors necessitated the appellant's prolonged stay at the Airport
for purposes of enquiries and verification and the seizure of the
cash : (i) The appellant had given contradictory statements
regarding the proposed purchase of land by him. Initial!)' he had ..>
stated that the deal was yet to be finalised. But the documents/
D investigation showed that he had already paid some advance · '{

to the seller by cheque. (ii) There was some variation between "'
the denominations of cash in the possession of the appellant and ~
the cash withdrawn from ICICI Bank. The learned Solicitor
General submitted that the appellant is not free from blame, as
by his unwise and rather narve decision to carry such a large sum
E
of money, creates suspicion. He also pointed out that appellant
put himself to personal risk by carrying such an amount of cash.
He pointed out that in the circumstances, the delay and seizure
)>-
were inevitable.
.,
10. We are in agreement with the submissions of the learned
F
Solicitor General. When the bonafides of a passenger carrying
an unusually large sum, and his claims regarding the source and
legitimacy, have to be verified, some delay and inconvenience
is inevitable. The inspecting and investigating officers have to
..
make sure that the money was not intended for any illegal
G purpose. In such a situation, the rights of the passenger will have
to yield to public interest. Any bonafide measures taken in public
interest, and to provide public safety or to prevent circulation of
black money, cannot be objected as interference with the
personal liberty or freedom of a citizen. We are satisfied that the
actions of the officers of the investigation wing in detaining the
H
RAJENDRAN CHINGARAVELU v. R.K. MISHRA, 1123
'ADDL. COMMNR. OF I T [RV. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
appellant for questioning and verification, and seizing the cash A
carried by him, were bonafide and in the course of discharge of
their official duties and did not furnish a cause of action for
claiming any compensation. The nation is facing terrorist threats.
Transportation of large sums of money is associated with
distribution of funds for terrorist activities, illegal pay offs etc.
There is also rampant circulation of unaccounted black money
destroying the economy of the country. In this background if the
officers wanted to fully satisfy themselves that the funds were not
intended for any illegal purposes, such action cannot be termed
as highhanded or unreasonable.
11. The appellant contended that when he had C
demonstrated that the money carried by him was drawn from his
bank and formed part of his legitimate earnings, and when there
was no legal prohibition in law for carrying such money, there was
no justification for detaining him for 15 hours or for seizing the
money that was carried by him. He contended that the purpose D.
for which he was carrying the money was not relevant at that
stage as he could use the money for any purpose; that if he used
the money for any illegal purpose, he could always be prosecuted;
and that therefore, seizure of money legally held and carried,
merely on baseless suspicions, was not warranted. The appellant E
is looking at the issue from the narrow angle of the right of a citizen
to carry money which is duly accounted for from a disclosed
source. It is no doubt true that a person has the right to carry

-
'
'
->

.,
money, whether his own or under authority of the person owning
it, in the absence of any prohibition. But the purpose for which
_the money is carried is also important from the point of view of
intelligence gatherers. Money which is drawn from a Bank and
F

legitimately belonging to the carrier, may still be used for an illegal
purpose, - say to pay for a crime or to fund an act of terrorism. It
may also be used for a routine illegal function - to make part
payment of sale consideration for a property in cash, so that the G
full price is not reflected in the sale deed, resulting in evasion of
stamp duty and registration charges and evasion of payment of
capital gains and creation of black money. The carrying of such
a huge sum, itself gives rise to a legitimate suspicion. The
intelligence officers are therefore entitled to satisfy themselves,
H
1124 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

r
A not only that the money is.from a legitimate source, but also satisfy
J< ....
themselves that such a large amount is being carried for a
legitimate purpose. That is necessary in the interest of •.
preventing crimes and offences. Therefore, even if the carrier is
not guilty of any offence in carrying the money, the verification or
seizure may be warranted to ensure that the money is· not
B
intended for commission of a crime or offence.
12. It is not only the security/intelligence personnel who
i
require to be sensitised, but also the air travelling public some ......
l
of whom throw tantrums and create scenes at Airports, even for ~ 1
minimum delays and checking procedures. When security
c protocols are in place, certain hardship and inconvenience is
inevitable, and should be accepted with grace, patience, and
discipline. Many a traveller forgets that the vigilance and checks
are meant for their own interest. )-

13. But the appellant's grievance in regard to media being
D informed about the incident even before completion of
"' •=
·f:
investigation, is justified. There is a growing tendency among :-'
investigating officers (either police or other departments) to
inform the media, even before the completion of investigation,
that they have caught a criminal or an offender. Such crude
E attempts to claim credit for imaginary investigational
breakthroughs should be curbed. Even where a suspect
surrenders or a person required for questioning voluntarily
appears, it is not uncommon for the Investigating Officers to
lo,.
represent to the media that the person was arrested with much
effort after ·considerable investigation or a chase. Similarly, ~
F '-
;
when someone voluntarily declares the money he is carrying,
media is informed that huge cash which was not declared was
discovered by their vigilant investigations and thorough checking.
Premature disclosures or 'leakage' to the media in a pending
investigation will not only jeopardise and impede further
G investigation, but many a time, allow the real culprit to escape
from law. Be that as it may.
14. The department's additional affidavit dated 23.11.2009 ~

expressed regret for the inconvenience caused to the appellant
and also assuages the apprehension felt by appellant that he
H
... RAJENDRAN CHINGARAVELU v. R.K. MISHRA, 1125
1i ADDL. COMMNR. OF I T [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
would be harassed for having taken the department to court. The A
"'>· relevant portions of the affidavit are extracted below : .
"I state and submit that the petitioner has alleged
. harassment against various Income Tax Officers who had
questioned hum on the possession of Rs.65 lakhs upon his
disembarkation at Chennai on 15th June, 2007. The 8
inconvenience caused to the petitioner, under the
circumstances, is regretted. Further, I state and submit that
the actions of the officers were not intended to harass or
""' cause any inconvenience to the petitioner. Moreover, these
actions were in furtherance of the prevailing circumstances
where adequate precaution and sensitization is rendered
c
necessary.
I state and submit that the petitioner has referred to certain
notices issued by the Income Tax Department under section
142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 20th November,
2009 in respect of the assessment years 2002-03, 2003- D
y
.( 04, 2004-05, 2006-07 and 2007-08. I state and submit that
the assessments of the petitioner, pursuant to the above
notices, will be undertaken strictly in accordance with law."
lf!f
15. The bonafides of the intelligence wing officials at
Chennai is not open to question, though their enthusiasm might E
have exceeded the limits when they went to press in regard to
the seizure. We are of the view that the remedial action by the
department and the expression of regret serves and achieves
-~
the purpose of appellant filing the writ petition. In view of the
1
above, the appeal is disposed of, treating the entire episode as F
closed. The appellant is not entitled to any further relief in the
matter.
-t
16. The efforts of the learned Solicitor General to find a
solution to reduce the hardships of the travelling public without
compromising the security/intelligence concerns, requires to be G
appreciated.
x R.P. Appeal disposed of.