Pradip Prasad .... .... … v. Opp. Party WITH Cr.M.P. No. 2117 of 2018 ------ .... Versus .... …
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 2115 of 2018 ------ Pradip Prasad .... .... …. Petitioner Union of India through Deputy Director of Income Tax Versus .... .... .... Opp. Party WITH Cr.M.P. No. 2117 of 2018 ------ .... Versus .... …. Petitioner Sandeep Kumar Union of India through Deputy Director of Income Tax .... .... .... Opp. Party
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioners For the Income Tax : Mr. Rohit Roy, Advocate : Mr. R.N. Sahay, Sr. S.C. Mr. Anurag Vijay, A.C. to Sr. S.C. ------ Order No.09 / Dated : 03.07.2023 1. Criminal misc. petition no. 2115 of 2016 and Cr.M.P No.2117 of 2016 have been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance passed in Complaint Case No. 01 & 2 of 2016 (T.R. No. 01&2 of 2016) respectively whereby and whereunder, cognizance has been taken under Sections 276C, 277 and 278E of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Both these cases involve common questions of law and fact and are
Decision
therefore heard jointly and shall be disposed of by the common order. 3. The main allegation against the petitioners is that during General Election, 2014 an information was received by the District Election Officer, Hazaribagh that a sum of Rs. 25 Lakh each was transferred by them in the Bank account of AJSU party. 4. In the assessment year 2014-15, the income tax return was filed by the petitioner Pradip Prasad showing income of Rs. 14,60,000/ and petitioner Sandeep Kumar filed income tax return showing income of Rs 6, 48, 030/-. 5. On enquiry by the Deputy Director of Income Tax was found that the company was involved in the transaction were paper companies for providing accommodation entries to the beneficiaries. On analysing the bank account of the petitioners it was found that before depositing the amount in his Bank Account it was rooted to several companies which were either filing return showing loss or sewing meagre income. Petitioners were found to have made false statement in verification and willful attemptted to evade tax with culpable mental state with regard to credit entry of Rs. 50 Lakh which had been routed through M/s Subh Suppliers Private Limited to the Political Party. The main allegation is that by the Shell Company for accommodation entry to the beneficiaries the amount was 2 received and then it was transferred to the political party in its account. 6. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that they were the Partners of M/s Rudra Construction and the amount was received in the account from M/s Subh Suppliers Private Limited. 7. The instant petitions for quashing are mainly based on the plea that the petitioners had appealed against the assessment order dated 30.12.2016 which is the basis of the instant criminal proceeding. The assessing officer assessed the income of Pradip Prasad at Rs.60,64,430/-and imposed tax of Rs.19,41,710/-. In case of Sandeep Kumar an income of Rs.51,48,000/-was assessed and tax of Rs.18, 82, 860 was imposed. 8. Said assessment order was challenged by the petitioners before the appellate authority in I.T. (Appeals), Hazaribagh which was registered as I.T Appeal No. 10079/HZB/2016 –17. In appeal the assessment order was set aside vide by the appellate authority vide order dated 27.9.2017. It was held that the appellant had made advance to AJSU party and the source of advance was bonafide received from prospective buyer of land. This transaction was verified from the bank account and other relevant documents i.e. agreement for land and subsequent registration of land on which the assessee paid capital gain tax in the assessment year 2016-17. It was also noted that the appellant had received some repayment of loan in the next financial year. 9. It is argued that in view of the fact that the order of assessment on which the present criminal proceeding hinges has been set aside, criminal prosecution cannot be permitted to continue in view of the ratio decided in (2004) 2 SCC 731,