The Delhi High Court has rejected the husband’s plea for tax probe into wife’s family after Rs. 2 crore dowry demand allegation.
The bench of the Chief Justice J Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela has observed that the complaint to the Income Tax Department seeking an investigation/audit of the sources of income of wife’s family was not under a statutory scheme or a regulatory mechanism available under the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The petitioner sought the direction for the Income Tax Department to conduct an inquiry and investigate the alleged illegal cash transactions of Rs.2 crores and other crores of rupees spent in the wedding. To further verify the Income Tax Returns (ITRs) and financial records of respondents for the last 10 years and to take necessary legal action in case of perjury, tax evasion or financial misconduct.
The petitioner got married to respondent in a simple ceremony in Delhi. However, the marriage failed and respondent-wife deserted the petitioner on 01.06.2024 taking all her belongings and valuables, and filed a police complaint in Agra, Uttar Pradesh on 13.06.2024. Subsequently, FIR came to be registered by the police. It is claimed that thereafter, the wife filed a complaint at Delhi alleging that her family gave Rs.2 crores as dowry and simultaneously spent crores of rupees at the wedding.
The petitioner submits that under Section 296ST of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the cash transactions exceeding Rs.2,00,000/- are prohibited. Additionally, it is submitted that the provision was introduced by the Finance Act, 2017 to curb black money and tax evasion by restricting high- value cash transactions and income tax department are duty bound to investigate financial misconduct.
At the outset, on a query by the Court, the petitioner is unable to indicate as to what fundamental or statutory rights of the petitioner have been infracted or violated.
The court while dismissing the petition, noted from the nature of the complaint and the pleadings of the writ petition that the petitioner is seeking a roving and fishing inquiry through the court process. This is clearly impermissible and cannot be countenanced.
Case Details
Case Title: ATEESH AGARWAL Versus UOI
Case No.: W.P.(C) 2139/2025
Date: 19th February, 2025
Counsel For Petitioner: Shobha Gupta
Counsel For Respondent: Kanav Vir Singh
