THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE SANCTION DATED 29.03.2016 AND CONSEQUENT THERETO THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.93/2016 ON THE FILE OF SPECIAL COURT FOR ECONOMIC OFFENCES, BANGALORE INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONER AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 05.04.2016 IN C.C.NO.93/2016 ON THE FILE OF SPL. COURT FOR ECONOMIC OFFENCES, BANGALORE OF TAKING COGNIZANCE AND ISSUING OF SUMMONS TO THE ACCUSED.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner has challenged the prosecution launched against him by the respondent in C.C No.93/2016 on the file of the Court of the Special Court for Economic Offences, Bengaluru and to quash the sanction dated 29.03.2016 granted by the Principal Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Bengaluru and to set aside the order dated 05.04.2016 in C.C No.93/2016 passed by the Special Court for Economic Offences, Bengaluru taking cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 276C(1) and 277 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ' IT Act, 1961).

(i) The facts that can be gathered from the petition are that, the respondent addressed a communication dated 04.02.2016 to the petitioner calling for certain details of investment made during the assessment year 2009-2010 to 2015-2016. The petitioner was informed that the same was done in view of Section 133 (6) of the IT Act, 1961 and failure to furnish the information would render him liable for penalty under Section 272A of the IT Act, 1961.

(ii) The petitioner claims that even before the information could be submitted, the respondent issued a summons on 16.02.2016 seeking his appearance on 19.02.2016. Even before the petitioner could appear, the respondent issued another summons on 18.02.2016 directing him to appear on 18.02.2016. The petitioner further contended that the summons dated 18.02.2016 was served in person at his office and simultaneously the statement of the petitioner was recorded.

(iii) Thereafter, on 19.02.2016, a show cause notice was issued for a proposed prosecution under Sections 276C(1) and 277 of the IT Act, 1961 and called upon the petitioner to appear in person on 29.02.2016 to show cause why prosecution should not be initiated. Petitioner claims that he had addressed a letter dated 22.02.2016 in reply to the summons dated 16.02.2016. He had also furnished the bank statement and sought time to submit other details.

(iv) He further contends that, on 23.02.2016, a letter was received from the respondent seeking answers to questionnaire forwarded on an earlier date. In response to the show cause notice dated 19.02.2016, the petitioner sent a reply dated 26.02.2016 furnishing details for the assessment year 2008-2009 and also indicated that the assessment was concluded and a Block Assessment Return was filed for the year 2008-2009. Thereafter, an appeal was preferred against the Block Assessment Order, which is pending.

(v) He also contended that, on 26.02.2016, he submitted another letter and drew the attention of the respondent to the fact that his statement was recorded and that no investments were made by him in any foreign country and in the absence of details, he was not able to submit his reply. Therefore, he sought for documents for verification. He further contended that, the respondent by a letter dated 14.03.2016 provided certain documents purportedly relating to incorporation of a company in British Virgin Islands. Later, the respondent by letter dated 22.03.2016 sought for a reply as to why prosecution should not be sanctioned. The petitioner sent his reply on 29.03.2016 informing the respondent that the investment made in British Virgin Islands in the name of the company was not within his knowledge and he was shocked to know about it.

(vi) Thereafter, on 29.03.2016, the Principal Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Bengaluru granted sanction to prosecute the petition