IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.
Shri Bachhraj Bamalwa - Appellant
Vs
Assistant Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Unit – 3 (1), Kolkata - Respondent
CRR 282 of 2019
Decided On : 03-04-2024
Income Tax Act - Criminal Prosecution - Sections 276C(1), 277, 120B
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a reputed jewelry business, was accused of receiving bogus LTCG through shell companies. The petitioner challenged the proceedings, citing lack of mens rea and jurisdictional issues. The appellate forum ruled in favor of the petitioner, exonerating him from the charges.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was exonerated from the charges by the appellate forum, undermining the foundation of the complaint. The court also noted jurisdictional and procedural irregularities in the proceedings.
Issues: Mens rea, jurisdictional issues, procedural irregularities
Ratio Decidendi: The appellate forum's ruling in favor of the petitioner undermined the foundation of the complaint, and the court noted jurisdictional and procedural irregularities in the proceedings.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the criminal revisional application and directed the trial court to proceed with the trial in accordance with the law.
JUDGMENT :
Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.
1. The present revision has been preferred praying for quashing of proceedings being Complaint Case No. C-1522 of 2018 under Sections 276C(1) and Section 277 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, now pending before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, at Alipore, South 24 Parganas, and all orders passed therein.
2. The petitioner states that the petitioner runs a reputed business house which deals in jewelry and precious stones under the name and style of “Nemichand Bamalwa & Sons”. The petitioner and even prior to him, his forefathers, had been in the said trade for the last few decades.
3. The petitioner states that the petitioner has been maliciously arraigned as an accused person in the impugned case, which was initiated at the behest of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax i.e. the opposite party herein.
4. Several search and seizure operations were carried out at the business premises of the petitioner.
5. The allegations in the complaint are that:-
6. It is further alleged that the accused person was a beneficiary of a penny scrip company M/s. Twenty First Century (India) Limited, incorporated, listed and designated to provide pre-arrange bogus Long Term Capital Gain/Short Terms Capital Loss in order to evade taxes. This company is a CSE listed company and is controlled and managed by Entry Operators Sri Anil Khemka and Rajendra Bubna who engaged the accused person in 2004. There is no registered office of M/s Twenty First Century (India) Ltd. It is only on paper that it has its registered office at 9, Lalbazar Street, Block B, 3rd Floor, Room No. 4, Kolkata – 700 001. All the directors are dummy. It is an investment company used for providing accommodation entry. The CSE banned this scrip in 2005. In 2007, suspension was revoked and due to limits on trading, rise in the price of scrip, no significant upward movement was there. Later, in 2011, four companies (which existed only on paper) were merged into M/s. Twenty First Century (India) Limited. Before the merger, client/beneficiaries of pre-arranged bogus LTCG were allotted shares of Astha Tradelink Pvt. Limited, Highland Dealcom Pvt. Limited, Dignity Suppliers Pvt. Limited and Sarathi Dealers Pvt. Limited. These companies were controlled and managed by Sri Anil Khemka. By this scheme of merger, share holders of these companies got 38 shares of M/s. Twenty First Century (India) Limited in lieu of one share. After passing of one year, the beneficiary was provided exit where counter party client on CSE, which were companies only on paper were controlled by Anil Khemka or other entry operators. At the time of exit for LTCG, the scrip rate was around 310-30. The source of funds for buying these shares of M/s. Twenty First Century (India) Limited for these companies on paper were unaccounted cash funds of the beneficiaries which was pumped into the various proprietorship concerns or companies (Which exists only on paper) and routed to companies that exist on paper or exist providing concerns. During this whole process there was no significant change in price of the scrip. Beneficiary was getting 38 times of the shares or to say 38 times of so called invested amount due to merger. Therefore, it is a penny stock and its main purpose was providing pre-arranged bogus LTCG entry.
7. Blueprint Securities Ltd. is also identified as penny stock which is controlled by Sri Praveen Agarwal and Sri Subhash Agarwal. It is also a company that exists only on paper with dummy directors and it is an i
Prem Dass Vs Income Tax Officer reported in 1999 (5) SCC 241
Standard Chartered Bank and Ors. Vs. Directorate of Enforcement and Ors.
Santram Paper Mills Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Ajit Kumar Nag v. General Manager (PJ), Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd., Haldia & Ors.
Noida Entrepreneurs Association v. NOIDA & Ors. (2007) 10 SCC 385
Tata Cellular v. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 651
Teri Oat Estates (P) Ltd. v. U.T.
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. T. Srinivas
Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Sarvesh Berry (2005) 10 SCC 471 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1605
Uttaranchal RTC v. Mansaram Nainwal (2006) 6 SCC 366 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 1341
Depot Manager, A.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Mohd. Yousuf Miya & Ors.
The appellate forum's ruling in favor of the petitioner undermined the foundation of the complaint, and the court noted jurisdictional and procedural irregularities in the proceedings.
The judgment establishes the principle that disciplinary and criminal proceedings are independent and require different standards of proof, emphasizing that the exoneration in disciplinary proceeding....
Judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited; courts defer to disciplinary authorities unless findings are perverse or unsupported by evidence.
Disciplinary authority's findings must be based on evidence; failure to adhere to natural justice principles renders proceedings void.
The distinction between criminal and departmental proceedings, and the different objectives and standards of proof in each, is crucial in determining the sustainability of parallel proceedings.
The Tribunal concluded that simultaneous criminal and departmental proceedings can proceed only if they do not prejudice the applicant's defense, deferring the latter pending the conclusion of the fo....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.