Case Law Details
Nayan Jayantilal Balu Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court)
Perusal of the complaint launched against Petitioner also disclose allegations that Petitioner failed to substantiate the claim of purchases amounting to Rs. 2,74,03,016/- and the assessing officer held the purchases to be bogus and made an addition of Rs. 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.
19 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. At this stage, this Court can not go into the truth or otherwise of the allegations made against Petitioner.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, Petitioner is challenging the order dated 25th January 2018 passed by Respondent No.3, sanctioning the prosecution against Petitioner under Section 276C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the said ‘Act’) and complaint filed against Petitioner in 38th Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ballard Pier, Mumbai bearing CC No.1123 of 2018.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
THE ASSESSEE HAS COMMITTED A BLUNDER BY APPROACHING THE HONOURABLE HIGH UNDER THE WRIT JURISDICTION. THE ADVOCATE OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARS TO HAVE MISGUIDED THE ASSESSEE FOR THE FEES AND PERHAPS OVERCONFIDENCE.