Raju Verma V. Union of India & others

C482/1601/2014

AI Insights

The case involves multiple Criminal Miscellaneous Applications filed by Raju Verma against the Union of India and others, concerning sanctions for criminal prosecution under Sections 276CC and 276D of the Income Tax Act. The sanctions were based on allegations that Verma failed to disclose earnings deposited in a Swiss Bank during 1996-2000, which were relevant to the assessments for the years 2006-2007 to 2011-2012. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, had issued summons after a prima facie finding of an offense under Section 276D. Verma contested the summons, leading to these applications in the High Court, which ultimately directed him to present his case in the lower court without quashing the summons.

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 800642 (HC-UTTARAKHAND)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 23-06-2015
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: S S ADHIKARI; H M BHATIA
• Assessee Lawyers: P R MULLICK; KARAN ANAND
• Keywords: Criminal prosecution; Income Tax; Sanction; Non-disclosure of Earnings; Swiss Bank
• Section: 276CC; 276D

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1601 of 2014 (Under Section 482 Cr.P.C.) Raju Verma …..… Applicant Versus Union of India & others …… Respondents With Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1602 of 2014 Raju Verma …..… Applicant Versus Union of India & others …… Respondents With Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1604 of 2014 Raju Verma …..… Applicant Versus Union of India & others …… Respondents With Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1605 of 2014 Raju Verma …..… Applicant Versus Union of India & others …… Respondents With Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1603 of 2014 Raju Verma …..… Applicant Versus Union of India & others …… Respondents With Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1606 of 2014 Raju Verma …..… Applicant Versus Union of India & others …… Respondents Present: Mr. P.R. Mullick, Advocate, with Mr. Karan Anand, Advocate, present for the applicant. Mr. S.S.Adhikari, learned Brief Holder, present for the State. Mr. H.M. Bhatia, Advocate, present for the respondent nos. 2 & 3/Income Tax Department. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. All these proceedings arise out of the sanction given by the Income Tax Authority to criminally prosecute the present applicant under the provisions of Income Tax Act, namely under Section 276CC and 276D of the Income Tax Act, as the case might be. 2 2. The sanction itself has been given only under Section 276D of the Income Tax Act. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun after taking cognizance of the fact that the sanction has been given by the appropriate authority considered the case of the revenue/complainant in some detail has come to the conclusion that prima facie, an offence seems to be made out against the applicant under Section 276D of the Income Tax Act, and therefore, summons have been issued to the applicant. 3. The applicant before giving its reply to the summons and presenting his case before the court concerned have approached this Court. 4. Today counter affidavits have been filed in all the connected matters, alongwith delay condonation applications. In the interest of justice, the delay condonation applications are allowed. The counter affidavits filed by the respondents/revenue department are taken on record. 5. Heard Mr. P.R. Mullick, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. H.M. Bhatia, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 & 3 and perused the record. 6. The case of the applicant before this Court is that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun has not applied its judicial mind before issuing summons to the present applicant, as in the present case, no case is made out against the applicant either under Section 276D of the Income Tax Act or under Section 276CC of the Income Tax Act. His case is that as per the averments in the sanctioning order and the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, only allegation against the applicant is that he has not disclosed his earnings deposited in the Swiss Bank for the period from 1996 to 2000, and that calls for separate proceedings. In the Income Tax matter, 3 each proceeding, assessment etc, including the alleged offence, if any, can only pertain to each independent assessment year only. The present issue relates to assessment year 2006-2007 to 2011-2012, proceedings of these particular assessment years cannot relate back to the proceedings of the year 1996 to 2000. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 & 3 Mr. Hari Mohan Bhatia, asserts that the matter is extremely serious and pertains to non- disclosure of earning by the applicant, and even though it may be of 1996 to 2000, it has relevant bearing on the present assessment year. Since the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun has now to proceed further with the matter in accordance with law based on the reply of the present applicant, the present matters stand disposed with the direction that the applicant shall present his case before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun. The entire facts as well as law shall be placed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, by the applicant. 8. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the cognizance cannot be taken either under Section 276CC or under Section 276D of the Income Tax Act. Let the same be considered by the court below and a speaking order be passed therein. 9. The contention of the learned counsel for the revenue is that cognizance ought to be taken in the present matter, shall also be taken into consideration by the court below. 10. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 11. With the aforesaid observation, the matters stand disposed. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 23.06.2015 Ankit "