The Jharkhand High Court refused to discharge the PCIT for alleged Corruption and recovery of cash worth Rs. 3.715 crore.
As per the prosecution, during search on 12.07.2017, at the residence of accused Tapas Kumar Dutta, Principal Commissioner Income Tax, Ranchi, cash to the tune of Rs. 3.715 crore and gold/jewellery 6 kgs were recovered. The investigation revealed that during the assessment year 2012-13, Income Tax Authorities at Kolkata conducted scrutiny of income tax returns filed by several companies selected by Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection (CASS) and during such scrutiny, huge undeclared income was found and accordingly addition in the income tax were made against such companies.
The companies controlled by co-accused Shri Bishwanath Agarwal and Shri Santosh Shah also figured in these proceedings. It is alleged that in order to get rid of the additions made by Income Tax, Kolkata, they contacted Shri Tapas Kumar Dutta, Principal Commissioner, Income Tax, Ranchi, known to them since his earlier posting in Kolkata.
The allegation is that Bishwanath Agarwal and Santosh Shah along with other accused persons entered into criminal conspiracy with Shri Tapas Kumar Dutta for obtaining favourable orders under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act., by getting PANs and records of such companies transferred to the jurisdiction of Ranchi and Hazaribagh so that Tapas Kumar Dutta in lieu of illegal gratification may entertain petitions under section 264 of Income Tax Act and pass favourable orders.
The single bench of Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary held that material on record prima-facie show that Tapas Kumar Dutta had misused his office and the official position to give undue favour to the petitioner in conspiracy with others and is a co-accused in this case for which sanction for prosecution has also been granted. The orders of remand passed under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act have the effect of nullifying the demand raised pursuant to the orders of assessments.
The court did not find any illegality or perversity or material irregularity in the impugned order of refusing to discharge the petitioner and also the impugned order framing charge against the petitioner. This court finds that the impugned orders are well reasoned orders based on materials on record and do not call for any interference in revisional jurisdiction of this court.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
