The Jharkhand High Court has refused to discharge the PCIT for alleged bribery and recovery of cash worth Rs. 3,715 crores.
According to the prosecution, during a search on 12.07.2017, at the residence of the accused Tapas Kumar Dutta, Chief Income Tax Commissioner, Ranchi, in cash in the amount of Rs. 3,715 crores and 6 kg of gold/jewels were recovered. The investigation revealed that during the 2012-13 tax year, the Kolkata tax authorities conducted a review of tax returns filed by several companies selected by Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection (CASS) and during from this review huge undeclared income was found and hence added in the income tax was levied on these companies.
Companies controlled by co-defendants Shri Bishwanath Agarwal and Shri Santosh Shah were also included in these proceedings. It is alleged that to get rid of additions made by Income Tax, Kolkata, they contacted Shri Tapas Kumar Dutta, Chief Commissioner, Income Tax, Ranchi who is known to them from his previous posting in Kolkata.
The allegation is that Bishwanath Agarwal and Santosh Shah along with other defendants entered into a criminal conspiracy with Shri Tapas Kumar Dutta to obtain favorable orders under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act., by getting the PANs and records of these companies transferred to the jurisdiction of Ranchi and Hazaribagh so that Tapas Kumar Dutta instead of unlawful gratuity can receive petitions under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act income and pass favorable ordinances.
The Single Bench of Judge Anubha Rawat Choudhary found that the evidence in the record shows prima facie that Tapas Kumar Dutta abused his office and official position to provide undue favor to the petitioner in a conspiracy with d others and is a co-defendant in this case for which prosecution sanction was also granted. The removal orders made under section 264 of the Income Tax Act have the effect of nullifying the claim raised under the assessment orders.
The court did not find any illegality or perversity or material irregularity in the contested order refusing to discharge the petitioner or in the contested order charging the petitioner. This court finds that the contested orders are well-reasoned orders based on evidence on record and do not interfere with the review jurisdiction of this court.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan ad-free. follow us on Telegram for quick updates.