Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
Raj Kumar Kedia, S/o Late Shri S.N. Kedia – Appellant
Versus
Income Tax Office – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
1. The above two Petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India have been filed for quashing of Criminal Complaint No.516654/2016 and Complaint No. 516655/2016 under Section 276-C(1) and 277-A Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2015- 16 and Order dated 14.09.2017 passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.407/2017 of learned ASJ upholding the Order of framing of Charge dated 28.06.2017 passed by learned ACMM.
2. Briefly stated, a search and seizure action under Section 132 Income Tax Act, 1961, on the basis of Warrants of Authorization issued by Director of Income Tax (INV)-1, Delhi, was conducted on 13.06.2014 at the premises of Petitioner/Raj Kumar Kedia at P-12, Hauz Khas Enclave, Second Floor, New Delhi and some incriminating documents were seized. The search action commenced on 13.06.2014 and concluded on 17.06.2014. Panchnama was prepared on the spot in respect of search and seizure action carried out in the aforesaid premises.
3. The statement of the Petitioner was recorded on Oath under Section 132(4) of the I.T. Act on 13.06.2014 and 17.06.2014. The Petitioner in his statement, admitted that in
The court upheld the validity of the prosecution's sanction and found the complaints valid, confirming that pending assessments do not impede criminal complaints under tax evasion laws.
An annulled penalty under the Income Tax Act negates the foundation for criminal prosecution for concealment unless reversed, thus quashing ongoing prosecution.
(1) Wilful tax evasion – Mens rea of assessee is required to be proved – In absence, lodging such prosecution would result into futility.(2) Wilful tax evasion – Circulars issued by Revenue are bindi....
Criminal prosecution requires credible evidence; unauthenticated foreign documents are insufficient to establish a prima facie case of tax evasion under the Income Tax Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Settlement Commission had exclusive jurisdiction from the date of the petitioner's application, and the penalty imposed was without jurisd....
The main legal point established is that the failure to remit tax, without evidence of a wilful attempt to evade tax, does not constitute an offence under Section 276 C (2) of the Income Tax Act.
object of launching criminal prosecution for wilful default in complying with the provisions of the Income Tax Act is to prevent evasion of tax
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
