Case Law Details
M/s Hillways Construction Company Private Limited Vs Income Tax Department and others (Uttarakhand High Court);
Admittedly Section 420 of IPC is an offence which comes under Chapter XVII of the IPC. Income Declaration Scheme (IDS), 2016, of which the petitioner is seeking benefit, categorically stipulates that in case prosecution is going on against a person for any offence punishable under Chapter IX or Chapter XVII of the IPC, he is not liable to get benefit of the Scheme. Although the order dated 24.10.2016 does not refer to prosecution under Section 420 of IPC but of Corruption of Prevention Act, but since prosecution is going on against the petitioner for an offence which comes under Chapter XVII of the IPC, petitioner is not liable to be granted benefit of the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT JUDGMENT / ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:
Under the Finance Act, 2016, the Government of India came with a scheme known as “Income Declaration Scheme, 2016”, which gave a chance to an assessee to declare the so far undisclosed assets/income. One of the important conditions for eligibility for a person to avail this scheme was that the Scheme shall not apply in relation to prosecution of any offence punishable under Chapter IX or Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code, the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner, in any case, claimed benefit under the said Scheme and sought a declaration, which by an order of the Income Tax Authorities dated 24.10.2016 has been denied to the petitioner on ground that CBI has filed prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act against the promoters of the company known as Hillways Construction Company Private Limited.
2. According to the petitioner, however, the matter relates to three plots which were purchased by Hillways Engineering Company Private Limited in the year 2009. Hillways Engineering Company Private Limited and Hillway Construction Private Company Limited got amalgamated on 01.04.2015. Admittedly the promoters of both the companies are common.
3. According to the petitioner, though in a criminal case after investigation the CBI has filed the chargesheet against the petitioner under Sections 120-B, 420, 468 & 471 of I.P.C., but the charges have been framed by the Special Judge, Anti Corruption, CBI against the petitioner only under Sections 120-B, 420, 468 and 471 I.P.C. and not under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act.
4. Admittedly Section 420 of IPC is an offence which comes under Chapter XVII of the IPC. The Scheme, of which the petitioner is seeking benefit, categorically stipulates that in case prosecution is going on against a person for any offence punishable under Chapter IX or Chapter XVII of the IPC, he is not liable to get benefit of the Scheme. Although the order dated 24.10.2016 does not refer to prosecution under Section 420 of IPC but of Corruption of Prevention Act, but since prosecution is going on against the petitioner for an offence which comes under Chapter XVII of the IPC, petitioner is not liable to be granted benefit of the said Scheme.
4. Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
