TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 409X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner was exempted till the order is pronounced by this Court. 4. The brief facts as per the petition are that the petitioner by letter dated 17th November, 2011 had disclosed a foreign bank account which existed with the HSBC Private Bank, Geneva, Switzerland to the Director of Income Tax (Investigation-II). The peak amount lying in the said account during the year ending 31st March, 2007 was around US$ 1.3 million. The account was closed in the year 2007. 5. The petitioner s statement was recorded on 24th November, 2011 and 9th December, 2011 under Section 131 of the Income Tax Act. 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-7 issued a notice dated 9th July, 2012 to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Act. The petitioner filed the return of income on 14th August, 2012 declaring the peak balance of the said foreign bank account amounting to ₹ 6,48,76,162/-for the assessment year 2006-07 and ₹ 27,94,163/- for the assessment year 2007-08. 6. The respondent issued notices under Section 142(1) of the Act dated 2nd May, 2013, 12th June, 2013, 11th July, 2013, 20th August, 2014 and 15th December, 2014 calling ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion/authorization dated 10th February, 2015 under Section 279(1) of the Act for initiating the action against the petitioner. The extract of the same reads as under: OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME (CENTRAL-1) NEW DELHI SANCTION/AUTHORIZATION UNDER SECTION 279(1), OF THE INCOME TAX ACT FOR A.Y. 2006-07 1. WHEREAS Sh. Shravan Gupta is being assessed to tax by the Assessing Officer of Income Tax, Central Cir, 02, New Delhi by virtue of order u/s 127 of the I.T. Act. 2. AND WHEREAS Shravan Gupta filed letter dated 17.11.2011 duly signed by him surrendering peak of his account with HSBC, Geneva/Zurich, Switzerland around US$1.3 million, which was not disclosed by him in his original return of income. 3. AND WHEREAS statement u/s 131 of the I.T. Act was recorded wherein, he has stated that the bank account was opened on reference by the Royal Family of Sultan of Oman and initially US$1.1 million were deposited and the last balance was US$1.2 million or US$1.3 million at the close of the said bank account in 2007. 4. AND WHEREAS the case was re-opened and the assessee has filed his return in response to notice u/s 148 of I.T. Act declaring peak balance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ropolitan Magistrate has passed the following order on 27th February, 2015 which reads as under: Complainant examined himself in pre-summoning evidence as CW-1 and pre-summoning is closed by him vide separated statement. Heard on the point of summoning. Perused the record. The present complaint has been filed U/s 276D with the allegation that the proposed accused vide his letter dated 17.11.2011 dully signed by him disclosed having Bank Account in Switzerland and also surrendered the peak of his account with HSBC, Jeneva, which income was not disclosed in his original return. Upon his disclosure, his statement was recorded on 24.11.2011 wherein he admitted having the bank account in the said bank and having transactions in the year 2006-2007. Accordingly, case was reopened U/s 147 of the IT Act and a notice U/s 158 of the IT Act was issued dated 09.07.2012. In response to the said notice, accused filed his return of income declaring the peak balance in the said foreign bank account. However despite various notices U/s 142 (1) of the IT Act dated 02.05.2013, 12.06.2013, 11.07.2013,20.08.2014 15.12.2014 calling details of the said foreign bank account including statement sinc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ior counsel of the petitioner, is that CIT (Central-I) infact has without considering the reply dated 9 th February, 2015, along with which copy of the bank statement was enclosed, and suppressing the same, filed a criminal complaint under Section 276-D of the Act for the assessment year 2006-07 and on 10th February, 2015 the authorization was granted under Section 279(1) of the Act. 15. Mr.Sethi also submits that at the time of sanction/authorization to file the criminal complaint against the petitioner, the department was fully aware that all the details of the account have been sent/disclosed. His simple argument is that the petitioner wants to pay the entire tax of the disclosed amount at HSBC, Private Bank, Geneva, Switzerland, without any condition as the petitioner just wants to get rid of any notice of prosecution of the respondent. It is also stated by Mr.Sethi that the department has now all the information of account. It may assess the tax thereon. The same would be deposited by the petitioner without any further delay. He submits that since the details were available with the department, the question of filing the criminal complaint against the petitioner does not ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is received by the appropriate desk within two days, but in the present case, the presummoning evidence in the above said matter was recorded on 27th February, 2015. At least on that date, the department had full knowledge of the contents of the two letters dated 9th February, 2015 and 11th February, 2015. The statement of Dr.Surjeet Singh does not contain the details of receipt of the said replies/letters. It was also not disclosed in the statement that the petitioner has already sent the bank statement for the entire period as alleged by the petitioner. It is not denied by the respondent s counsel that the letter dated 11th February, 2015 contains the reference and details of letter dated 9th February, 2015, where the statement of bank account was enclosed. It is also not denied by the respondent that when the pre-summoning evidence was recorded, the said documents were not in the possession of the respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent 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 co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
