9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 879X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... constitute the offence must be apparent on the sanction order and the record must bear out the reasons in that regard. A perusal of the sanction order clearly indicates that the sanctioning authority appears to have applied its mind to the facts placed before it and considered them and then granted sanction. Perusal of the complaint launched against Petitioner also disclose allegations that Petitioner failed to substantiate the claim of purchases amounting to ₹ 2,74,03,016/- and the assessing officer held the purchases to be bogus and made an addition of ₹ 34,25,377/(12.5% of the bogus purchases). On Appeal by Petitioner, CIT (A) vide order dated 19.12.2016 confirmed the addition. ITAT also confirmed said order. It is stated that, therefore, Petitioner has willfully and intentionally evaded his tax liability. Taking into consideration accusations in the complaint and material on record, we are satisfied that, prima facie, the ingredients of the offences under Section 276C(1) of the said Act are satisfied. Assessee Petition dismissed. - CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2698 OF 2021 - - - Dated:- 7-12-2021 - K. R. SHRIRAM AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ. Mr. Dharan V. Gandh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... After filing the complaint, Assessing Officer passed an order, imposing a penalty on Petitioner of ₹ 10,58,440/- which was challenged by Petitioner before the CIT(A) on 2nd May 2018. 8. According to Petitioner, he became aware of the prosecution lodged against him under Section 276C(1) of the said Act when he received a summons dated 29th March 2019, requiring him to appear before the Additional Metropolitan Magistrate on 13th May 2019. 9. Petitioner has, therefore, filed present Petition on 12th July 2021, challenging the order of sanction of prosecution dated 25th January 2018 and filing of complaint bearing CC No.1123 of 2018. 10. Respondents have filed a reply as per order of this Court dated 24th August 2018. Petitioner has filed his affidavit in rejoinder on 22nd September 2021. 11. We have heard Mr. Dharan Gandhi, Counsel for Petitioner and Mr. Akhileshwar Sharma, Counsel for the Respondents. 12. Mr. Gandhi invited our attention to the instructions issued by Director (INV-I) and OSD(Legal), North Block, New Delhi. He submitted that prosecution under Section 276C(1) of the said Act could be initiated only when a penalty exceeding ₹ 50,000/- is impos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The order of sanction at Ex. D-3 shows that prosecution under Section 279(1) of the said Act has been accorded after recording satisfaction that Petitioner has attempted to evade tax. It is stated in the sanction order that Petitioner has failed to substantiate the claim of purchases amounting to ₹ 2,74,03,016/- and the assessing office held the purchases to be bogus and made an addition of ₹ 34,25,377/- (12.5% of the bogus purchases.) It is well settled that before granting sanction the authority must have before it the necessary report and the material facts which prima facie establish the commission of offence alleged for and that the sanctioning authority would apply its mind to those facts. The order of sanction is only an administrative act and not a quasi-judicial one nor is a lis involved. Therefore, the order of sanction need not contain detailed reasons in support thereof. But the basic facts that constitute the offence must be apparent on the sanction order and the record must bear out the reasons in that regard. A perusal of the sanction order clearly indicates that the sanctioning authority appears to have applied its mind to the facts placed before it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance of the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal private grudge. In the case of Bhajan Lal (supra), the Apex Court gave a note of caution on the powers of quashing of a criminal proceeding in the following words: 103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the Court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
