Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2022 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (12) TMI 889 - HC - Indian LawsSeeking grant of Anticipatory Bail - conspiracy - huge loss to Revenue - during the pendency of the CIT appeals at Kolkata, the revision petitions have been filed to obtain favourable orders - offences punishable under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 7, 8, 11, 12 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act - HELD THAT:- The court has gone through the materials available on record as well as rival submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and finds that it has been alleged that the petitioner Bishal Agarwal has prepared Section 264 petitions and represented the companies before the PCIT. The petitioners Satyanarayan Sarawagi and Uday Shankar Mahawar are concerned, they are the directors / controllers of the respective companies, as disclosed in the submission of learned D.S.G.I. appearing for the CBI and the huge loss has occurred to the Government. The petitioner Binod Kumar Agarwal is concerned, he has made his son Bishal Agarwal as authorized representative for most of the above mentioned Assessee companies with the active involvement, he himself along with the controller of the Assessee companies were able to evade taxes and had obtained wrongful gain and so far as petitioner Deepak Kumar is concerned, he was also the director / controller of the company mentioned in the submission of learned A.S.G.I. and huge loss has occurred to the Government due to his active conspiracy with the then PCIT. All the petitioners are in conspiracy of transferring the PAN to the PCIT, Ranchi, Hazaribag and Koderma. It has also come that during the pendency of the CIT appeals at Kolkata, such revision petitions have been filed to obtain favourable orders in connivance with Sri Tapas Kumar Dutta, the then PCIT. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the cases and considering that the economic offence is a serious offence against the society, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners - petition dismissed.
|