9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Quashing of order dismissing application for discharge and proceedings under sections 277, 193, and 196 of the Income-tax Act. Analysis: The petitioner sought quashing of an order dismissing his application for discharge and the proceedings under sections 277, 193, and 196 of the Income-tax Act. The complaint alleged that during a search and seizure operation, the petitioner surrendered a substantial income, later changing the disclosed amount. The petitioner moved an application for discharge, contending that the revised income covered the entire amount surrendered. The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate rejected the discharge application, citing that it was a warrant trial case and witnesses had not been examined. The petitioner argued that the prosecution was based on contradictory statements, not tax evasion, but the Revenue contended otherwise. The High Court considered the well-settled law on quashing criminal proceedings and noted that evidence at this stage cannot be fully appreciated. Section 278E of the Income-tax Act presumes a culpable mental state for the accused in such cases, shifting the burden of proof to the accused to establish their defense. The court highlighted that at this stage, based on the allegations and documents, it could not be conclusively determined that the offense was not made out against the petitioner. The court refrained from detailed examination as the trial was pending, emphasizing that the trial court would assess the evidence comprehensively. In conclusion, the High Court found no merit in the petitioner's plea and dismissed the petition, directing the trial court record to be returned promptly. The court clarified that its observations should not impact the case's merits, leaving the detailed examination of allegations and evidence for the trial proceedings.
|
