2012 (9) TMI 350 - SC - Income Tax

Writ Petition alleged that financial statement of the petitioner- company were allegedly fudged. Allegedly sales and interest income for several years have been overstated, fictitious deposits allegedly were shown in the balance-sheet Held that - It was the case of the company before the Central Board of Direct Taxes that the Department had acted on the basis of false claims of payment of taxes made by the previous management by rectifying the assessment and raising tax demands - no hearing was given to the petitioner-company - Central Board of Direct Taxes, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, ought to have heard the petitioner-company, which they have not done - representations made by the petitioner require further details to be furnished - special leave petition accordingly, disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
Alleged financial fraud by former management, request for re-quantification of income by petitioner-company, rejection of representation by Central Board of Direct Taxes, High Court's order for payment and bank guarantee, Supreme Court's intervention and directions.

Alleged Financial Fraud:
The petitioner-company claimed to be a victim of significant financial fraud by the former chairman and management. The fraud involved overstating sales and interest income, showing fictitious deposits in the balance-sheet, and paying taxes on non-existent income to create a false impression of financial health. The Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) conducted an investigation, revealing substantial overstatements in revenues and incomes, inflated balance-sheet figures, and wrongful tax payments on fictitious income. The SFIO reports highlighted the extent of overstatement in sales, interest income, and excess tax paid on non-existent deposits.

Request for Re-Quantification of Income:
The petitioner-company approached the Central Board of Direct Taxes, requesting a re-quantification of income for specific assessment years due to the fraud committed by the former management. The company contended that the income declared by the previous management was overstated, leading to excessive tax credit claims. The Central Board of Direct Taxes, however, rejected the representation without giving the petitioner a hearing, prompting the company to seek legal recourse.

High Court's Order and Supreme Court's Intervention:
Following the rejection by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, the petitioner moved the High Court through a Writ Petition, which resulted in an order directing the company to pay a substantial amount and provide a bank guarantee. The Supreme Court intervened, noting that the Central Board of Direct Taxes should have heard the petitioner-company before making a decision. The Court directed the company to file a detailed representation with the Board, which would then hear the case and provide reasons for its decision within a specified timeframe. Additionally, the chairman of the company was required to furnish a significant bank guarantee to lift the attachment levied by the Department.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court disposed of the special leave petition, allowing the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition from the High Court. The Court refrained from expressing any opinion on the case's merits, keeping all contentions open for future challenges against the Central Board of Direct Taxes' decision. The petitioner-company retained the right to contest the order through appropriate legal channels if dissatisfied.