Sunil Kumar Gupta V. Union of India through the Central Bureau Of Investigation (CBI)

B.A./8699/2017

AI Insights

The case involves allegations against Sunil Kumar Gupta, an Income Tax Officer, for his involvement in a conspiracy led by Tapas Kumar Dutta, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi. The conspiracy allegedly involved the illegal transfer and reassessment of Income Tax files, resulting in significant tax benefits for certain companies in exchange for bribes. The CBI charged Gupta with offenses under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The defense argued that Gupta acted under the directions of Dutta and that there was no direct evidence of bribery against him, such as the recovery of ill-gotten assets. The prosecution highlighted the drastic reduction in tax demands as evidence of corruption.

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 801699 (HC-JHARKHAND)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 18-12-2017
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Indian Penal Code, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: KAILASH DEO
• Assessee Lawyers: R S MAZUMDAR; NISHANT ROY
• Keywords: Bribery; Corruption; Criminal conspiracy; Income Tax; Re-assessment
• Section: 12; 15; 13(2); 7; 13(1)(d); 120B; 511

Judgement Text

" 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 8699 of 2017 ---- Sunil Kumar Gupta son of late Ram Babu Gupta, resident of Plot No.7, Poornima (Riverside) Kadru, P.O. and P.S. Argora, District Ranchi. … Petitioner -versus- Union of India through the Central Bureau Of Investigation (CBI) … Opposite Party ---- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN ---- For the Petitioner : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate Mr. Nishant Kumar Roy, Advocate For the Opp. Party (CBI): Mr. Kailash Prasad Deo, Advocate ---- O R D E R RESERVED ON 12.12.2017 PRONOUNCED ON 18.12.2017 The petitioner is an accused for allegedly committing an offence punishable under Sections 120B, 511 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 7, 12 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) and 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. The allegations in the first information report is that one Tapas Kumar Dutta, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi entered into a criminal conspiracy with other Income Tax Officers and other persons and thereafter transferred the Income Tax Files of several assesses from Kolkata to Ranchi and Hazaribagh. Further, as a part of the said conspiracy, re- assessment was done in respect of the said companies, whose files were transferred and thereafter huge tax benefits have been given to the said assesses. It is alleged that the said benefits were given to the assesses for which those assesses have paid huge amount by way of bribe. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, FIR was lodged against said Tapas Kumar Dutta and all the other named accused persons including this petitioner. 2 4. After completion of investigation, chargesheet has been filed in this case, which has been brought on record. 5. This petitioner is an Income Tax Officer. The allegation against this petitioner is that in respect of companies, in the name and style of (i) M/s. High Rank Commodities Dealer Pvt. Ltd., (ii) M/s. Rexnos Trexim Pvt. Ltd., and (iii) M/s. G.R.D. Finance Pvt. Ltd., this petitioner issued notices to the said assessees and concluded the reassessment proceedings. It is alleged that the petitioner being the Income Tax Officer, abused his official position and passed orders reducing the demands in respect of (i) M/s. High Rank Commodities Dealer Pvt. Ltd. from Rs.10,71,14,810/- to (-) 8,351/-; (ii) M/s. Rexnos Trexim Pvt. Ltd. from Rs.1,05,40,130/- to Rs.2,230/-; and (iii) M/s. G.R.D. Finance Pvt. Ltd. from Rs.1,05,45,630/- to Rs.27,22,540/-. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an Income Tax Officer and has only passed the re-assessment order after issuing notice to the assessee Companies. He submits that from perusal of the chargesheet, which deals with the investigation in relation to (i) M/s. High Rank Commodities Dealer Pvt. Ltd., (ii) M/s. Rexnos Trexim Pvt. Ltd., and (iii) M/s. G.R.D. Finance Pvt. Ltd., it would be quite clear that the investigating agency has found that this petitioner, on the directions of the principal accused Tapas Kumar Dutta, issued notices of hearing to the said assessees. It is also clear that it is Tapas Kumar Dutta, who by abusing his official position, has set aside the original assessment orders. He submits that after setting aside the assessment orders, the matters were remanded for fresh decision and the petitioner being the Income Tax Officer, took into consideration the observations and directions made in the orders passed by Tapas Kumar Dutta and thereafter passed the reassessment orders. He submits that there is no illegality in the action of the petitioner as because 3 being a quasi judicial authority, he has applied his mind and passed orders. He submits that the orders, even if they are wrong, cannot be said to have been passed with malafide intentions after taking bribe. He submits that until and unless the Central Bureau of Investigation, in their chargesheet, comes with a prima-facie finding that there was a quid pro quo, this petitioner cannot be charged for committing any criminal offence. He submits that no cash, valuables to connect with bribe have been recovered from the possession of this petitioner as in the case of Tapas Kumar Dutta from whom huge cash, gold etc. were recovered. It is submitted that the petitioner has been arrested and is in custody since 07.09.2017. So far as the allegation of telephonic conversation between the petitioner, Shri Tapas Kumar Dutta and some representatives of the beneficiary companies is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the petitioner was giving hearings of reassessment, the mobile numbers of the concerned assessees were mentioned in the respective files for which the assessees were noticed through calling them by phone. He submits that this cannot be even a prima facie proof to implicate that the petitioner had accepted bribe, when, in fact, it is an admitted case that there is no material in the chargesheet to suggest that any ill-gotten cash, gold or valuables were recovered from the petitioner. He submits that in fact, the petitioner was arrested just a day before filing of the chargesheet and since he has co-operated in the entire investigation and chargesheet has already been filed in this case, there is no necessity of custodial trial in this case. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation, submits that the petitioner is a part of a very big conspiracy, where benefits have been given to different companies after re-assessing their original assessment orders in a pre-planned manner. He submits that a huge loss has 4 been caused to the State Exchequer where the demands have been slashed to a very negligible amount, and in some cases to NIL amount, by the Income Tax Officers, including the petitioner, at the behest of Tapas Kumar Dutta. He submits that the Central Bureau of Investigation, during investigation in respect of the companies mentioned in the First Information Report, is of the view that there are probabilities that similar type of benefits may have been provided by the Income Tax Officers to other companies, as such they are investigating that aspect also. He submits that pursuant to the last order passed by this Court, Central Bureau of Investigation has handed over in a sealed cover the information which was sought for, wherein they have mentioned the number of reassessments over and above the companies mentioned in the First Information Report, done by the petitioner and others after transfer of file from Kolkata. In the report it is mentioned that the petitioner may be involved in 7 other cases, details references whereof are not there in the report. He cannot deny the fact that nothing like ill-gotten cash, gold or other valuables have been recovered from the petitioner to suggest quid pro quo, but submits that in future something may surface. He submits that Call Details Record were gathered by the Central Bureau of Investigation, which shows evidence of telephonic conversation in between the petitioner, Tapas Kumar Dutta and some representatives of the beneficiary company. He also admits that it is only in respect of three companies the petitioner has passed the orders of re- assessment, so far as the present FIR is concerned. 8. After going through the records and after hearing the parties, I find that the petitioner is an Income Tax Officer and admittedly he has passed the re- assessment orders, by which the demands in respect of companies, i.e., (i) M/s. High Rank Commodities Dealer Pvt. Ltd., (ii) M/s. Rexnos Trexim Pvt. Ltd., and (iii) G.R.D. Finance Pvt. Ltd. were drastically reduced. The said 5 orders were passed in terms of the provisions laid down in the Income Tax Act. The Central Bureau of Investigation has made out a case that these orders were passed without considering the relevant legal provisions and contentions raised by the department. Thus, I find that the Central Bureau of Investigation has challenged the legality, propriety and correctness of the said orders and has come to a conclusion that the said orders were passed after taking bribe. In the Chargesheet filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation, there is nothing to suggest that any ill-gotten money or ill-gotten property or valuables were recovered from the possession of this petitioner. Rather, the Central Bureau of Investigation has very fairly submitted that no such things or material have been recovered from the possession of this petitioner. It admits that cash, gold and other tangible assets were recovered from the principal accused and not from this petitioner. It is also apparent that this petitioner has cooperated with the Central Bureau of Investigation during investigation as in the affidavit filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation, it is clearly mentioned that the petitioner has joined the investigation of the case as and when required, but he did not cooperate as he did not disclose the income pertaining to the crime and the proceeds thereto. To this the petitioner replied that as he did not indulge in any corrupt practices, it was not possible for him to say about the same. This suggests that the petitioner made himself available as and when he was required to appear before the Central Bureau of Investigation. Further, I find that the petitioner was arrested on 07.09.2017 and the chargesheet was filed on the very next date. This also suggests that during investigation, petitioner cooperated with the Central Bureau of Investigation, otherwise, the Central Bureau of Investigation could have arrested the petitioner much prior to filing of the chargesheet. So far as the contention of the Central Bureau of Investigation that there may be other companies to 6 which same benefit has been extended, in a similar manner for which they are also investigating, I find that in the affidavit, which has been filed in the sealed cover, it has been mentioned that the petitioner may be involved in 7 other cases, details references whereof are not there in the affidavit, but those cases of re-assessment are not the subject matter of this FIR, which the Central Bureau of Investigation has already investigated and filed chargesheet. This also suggests that the investigation against the petitioner is absolutely complete so far as the present FIR is concerned. Further, after closure of investigation, there is no scope of presumption. 9. In this case the trial is mainly based on documentary evidence, which is already there in the custody of Central Bureau of Investigation. The maximum punishment that can be awarded to the petitioner is imprisonment for a term of 7 years under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Further, I find that the petitioner has cooperated with the Central Bureau of Investigation during investigation as he made himself available to the Central Bureau of Investigation as and when required and was only taken into custody just a day before the chargesheet was filed. Filing of chargesheet means completion of investigation as there is nothing in the chargesheet that the investigation is kept pending. There is no allegation against the petitioner that he will tamper with the evidence or interfere with the trial if he is released on bail. Further from the chargesheet I find that there are 94 chargesheet witnesses, 91 documents which include several files, transcripts etc. and 32 materials exhibits including electronic evidences, which are to be exhibited in this case, which clearly suggests that the evidence is too voluminous and trial will take considerable time. Thus, keeping in view the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra versus C.B.I., I am inclined to release the petitioner on bail, but, on the following conditions: - 7 (i) Petitioner will be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi in connection with RC-AC-1-2017A0003 [RC 03(A)/17(D)]; (ii) He shall remain present before the Trial Court on each and every date of hearing. If they want to remain absent on a particular date for any unavoidable circumstance or reason, the reasons of their absence should be communicated to the Court concerned well in advance; (iii) He will intimate the Court of his present residential address along with documents in proof of the same and he will give an undertaking that without taking permission of the Court, he will not change his place of residence. In case he is forced to change his residence, he will furnish sufficient proof of his new residence and obtain permission from the Trial Court; (iv) Petitioner will deposit his passport, if any, with the Court below; (v) He will not dispute his identity as an accused in this case. (vi) If any of the aforesaid conditions is violated and instance of such violation is brought to the notice of the Court, the Court may take appropriate action including that of cancelling the bail bonds of the petitioner; (vii) Liberty is reserved with Central Bureau of Investigation to make a prayer for modification or recalling of the order if any of the aforesaid conditions is/are violated. With these observations and conditions, this application stands allowed. (Ananda Sen, J.) Kumar/Cp-03 "