Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2015 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (4) TMI 409 - HC - Income TaxCriminal proceedings - prosecution - non-compliance/non-cooperation to the notices issued u/s 142(1) - discloser of foreign bank account which existed with the HSBC - Sanction / Authorization granted by the CIT - commission of offence u/s 276D, r/w Section 278E as the details of the account opening and transaction therein the foreign bank account will be specifically in the knowledge of accused who being the account holder will be having the relevant information but he failed to provide the details willfully - Held that:- There is no dispute that if action as per law is required to be taken against the petitioner under the said provision for noncompliance, the said is always available with the respondent who also be entitled to receive all taxes and penalties from the petitioner as per law. In case there is non-compliance of the said notices under Section 142(1) of the Act, the requisite action in accordance with law had to be taken against the petitioner who would be entitled to contest the same in accordance with law. However, it is also a matter of fact that the criminal proceedings have been initiated by the respondent against the petitioner on the basis of the sanction issued by the department on 10th February, 2015 and in case the grounds of the sanction are read, it is evident that the reply sent by the petitioner contains the copy of the bank statement filed for the period has not been mentioned/ discussed in the same. Learned counsel for the respondent / revenue has confirmed to the Court that the statements of bank accounts have already been received for the purpose of assessing the tax, which were not furnished by the petitioner. Thus, it is apparent that while recording the statement of the complainant and passing the summoning order dated 27th February, 2015, all the facts were not available with the trial Court otherwise the Court might have asked the respondent to produce the same and to consider the replies dated 9 th February, 2015 and 11th February, 2015 before passing the summoning order or the respondent ought to have sought prayer for amendment in the sanctioning letter. The same has not happened in the present case. Under these circumstances, the order dated 27th February, 2015 passed in Criminal Complaint whereby the summoning order has been passed, is liable to be quashed on technical reason.
|