Jamshedpur/Ranchi, July 20 : The Telegraph report on the income tax survey conducted on the premises of M/S Sreeleathers at Jamshedpur this month has elicited a strong and acerbic rejoinder from the commissioner of income tax, Jamshedpur, Subodh Kumar Sinha.

An equally strong complaint, according to executives of the footwear giant, has been made by the company to the Central Board of Direct Taxes, refuting claims made by the commissioner to newspapers. The company claimed that the last survey by the IT department was carried out in its premises way back in 1994. It was also subjected to a scrutiny barely six months ago , conducted by Francis Lakra, a tax officer. On both occasions, it claims, nothing untoward was found. The recent survey carried out by Sinha, therefore, was not warranted, the company maintains. M/S Sreeleathers, the company maintains, is a partnership firm registered and assessed at Jamshedpur. It has a branch office in Calcutta. On the other hand, Sreeleathers Private Limited, is a company with headquarters in Calcutta and a branch office at Jamshedpur. The survey conducted by Sinha, the executives claimed, erred in calculating and confiscating turnover, stocks and documents of both. The IT commissioner, on the other hand, is confident that the survey succeeded in netting a big fish. In his rejoinder, written with “ anger, anguish, pain and consternation,” Sinha accuses The Telegraph reporters of walking into a trap and accepting the version of the “tax evader” without question and malign the “ tax catcher”, who, he writes, “ has a very clean image in the department”. The survey, he points out, was meant to gather evidence of tax evasion and he claims to have stumbled on several incriminating facts and documents.

Footwear stocks worth Rs 1 crore was found, for example, which was almost four times higher than what the company had declared earlier, writes the commissioner. Company executives claimed that the stocks belonged to not one but two companies and that the commissioner had erred in calculating the MRP ( maximum retail price) of the stock and not the cost-price, which the company disclosed in Returns.

They also refute that a sum of Rs 7.28 lakh was lying on the premises and the company failed to explain the source. The executives told The Telegraph that they don’t mind challenging the claim and declared that the claim is a part of deliberate mischief. They refused to comment on the commissioner’s claim that the firm had failed to account for hefty bank deposits, bank drafts issued in various names and share certificates. “All the papers are with the department and therefore we are unable to respond to such claims without reference to them,” they pleaded.

In its complaint to the CBDT, however, the firm categorically claims that the commissioner was pressurising them to grant a dealership to one Suresh Kumar at Hajipur (Bihar). Business partners were summoned to the house of the Commissioner on a number of occasions and asked about the dealership, the firm claimed.

The rejoinder by the commissioner said it was not unusual for him to lead a “survey” because the Act empowered him to do so.