Judgment K.A. Puj, J.—The petitioner has filed this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India praying for directions to the respondents not to take any steps for the recovery of the alleged demand of tax and/or interest for the Assessment Year 1992-93 without serving an assessment order upon the petitioner and without following the procedure at law. 2. This petition was admitted on 24.10.1996 and an interim order was passed granting interim relief in terms of Para 7(B) on condition that the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs. 1 lakh and furnish security of the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Income Tax within two months from the date of the said order. The Court has also made it clear that in case of default of any of the said conditions, the interim relief shall stand vacated automatically. 3. The affidavit-in-reply is filed on behalf of the respondent, wherein it is specifically stated that on enquiries made by the office of the Income-tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Ahmedabad, Respondent No. 3 herein, it was found that for certain consideration in return, Shri R.D. Solanki, Peon of his office was induced by Shri Jawahar Gandhi at the instance of the petitioner to take away assessment records of the assessee from the record room. Shri Gandhi happens to be accountant of the petitioner and represented the assessee in the course of assessment proceedings. The petitioner in his statement has admitted that he had authorised Shri Gandhi to represent him in connection with assessment proceedings before the Income-tax Officer. Shri Solanki accompanied with Shri Gandhi on the pillion of latter’s scooter took away the records to Shri Gandhi’s residence where the original assessment order and other relevant papers were destroyed. Shri Gandhi and Shri Solanki have admitted these facts in their statements recorded on 23.8.95, 11.9.95 and 15.9.95. In the confessional statement given on 15.9.95, both these persons have explained the entire sequence of events. 4. It is further averred in the affidavit that the C.B.I. have registered a criminal complaint against the petitioner and other co-accused persons in this regard. The investigation was being carried out by the C.B.I. to find out the truth. The petitioner with a criminal intention has conspired to evade the payment of taxes due from him by resorting to criminal acts. 5. The investigation was being carried out by the C.B.I. to find out the truth. The petitioner with a criminal intention has conspired to evade the payment of taxes due from him by resorting to criminal acts. 5. In view of the above averments which are made in the affidavit-in-reply, which have not been controverted by the petitioner, we do not find any substance in this petition. Even otherwise, Mr. Soparkar, the Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that he is not in a position to contact his client and the present position about the petitioner is not known to him. 6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and considering the conduct of the petitioner as reflected in the affidavit-in-reply, we do not see any substance in this petition. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged without any order as to costs. P P P P P