9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Allegations of tax evasion against accused-petitioners and their company. 2. Appeal process and decisions by various tax authorities. 3. Cognizance taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and issuance of non-bailable warrants. 4. Contention for anticipatory bail by accused-petitioners. 5. Arguments against granting anticipatory bail by the Department. 6. Legal precedents and judgments cited by both sides. 7. Jurisdictional aspects and filing of bail application. 8. Comparison with a similar case and the decision taken. Analysis: The judgment pertains to allegations of tax evasion against the accused-petitioners and their company, leading to a complaint filed under sections 276C(1) and 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner added certain amounts to the taxable income, which was initially allowed as deductions by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) but later overturned by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The accused-petitioners were alleged to have committed these offences with the intent to evade tax. Cognizance of the offences was taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, who issued non-bailable warrants against the accused-petitioners. Subsequently, the accused-petitioners filed petitions seeking anticipatory bail. The defense argued that the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was not final due to pending rectification and reference applications, and contended that the accused had not concealed any facts during the assessment. They also claimed that their arrest was unnecessary as they were not needed for investigation or to prevent influence on witnesses. The Department opposed the anticipatory bail, citing that the accused had not approached the Sessions Judge before filing the application and referenced previous cases where bail was not granted in economic offences. They argued that the accused should not be released on bail due to the nature of the offences and the possibility of influencing the case. The judgment referenced legal precedents to establish that the pendency of tax assessment proceedings does not bar criminal prosecution. It also highlighted that the High Court has the power to grant anticipatory bail in cases involving economic offences, as seen in previous judgments. The court dismissed the contention that the bail application should have been filed before a specific bench, clarifying the jurisdictional aspect. Drawing parallels with a similar case, the court directed the accused-petitioners to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate and notify their surrender date in advance to the Department. The warrants of arrest were stayed until the surrender date, and the bail applications were disposed of without delving into the case's merits.
|
