Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, FIR was lodged against said Tapas Kumar Dutta and all the other named accused persons including this petitioner.

4. After completion of investigation, chargesheet has been filed in this case, which has been brought on record.

5. This petitioner is an Income Tax Officer. The allegation against this petitioner is that in respect of companies, in the name and style of (i) M/s. Sitara Fincon Pvt. Ltd., (ii) M/s. Trishala Vyapara Pvt. Ltd., (iii) M/s. Ontime Developers Consultants Pvt. Ltd., and (iv) M/s. Zoom Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd., this petitioner issued notices to the said assessees and concluded the reassessment proceedings. It is alleged that the petitioner being the Income Tax Officer, abused his official position and passed orders reducing the demands in respect of (i) M/s. Sitara Fincon Pvt. Ltd. from Rs.16,60,99,690/- to Rs.2,00,840/-; (ii) M/s. Trishala Vyapara Pvt. Ltd. from Rs.1,69,52,69,700/- to Rs.82,670/-; (iii) M/s. Ontime Developers Consultant Pvt. Ltd. from Rs.12,75,08,680/- to Rs.5,750/-; and (iv) M/s. Zoom Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. from Rs.14,12,24,840/- to Rs.7,890/-.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an Income Tax Officer and has only passed the re-assessment orders after issuing notice to the assessee Companies. He submits that from perusal of the chargesheet, which deals with the investigation in relation to (i) M/s. Sitara Fincon Pvt. Ltd., (ii) M/s. Trishala Vyapara Pvt. Ltd., (iii) M/s. Ontime Developers Consultant Pvt. Ltd., and (iv) M/s. Zoom Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd., it would be quite clear that the investigating agency has found that this petitioner, on the directions of the principal accused Tapas Kumar Dutta, issued notices of hearing to the said assessees. It is also clear that it is Tapas Kumar Dutta, who by abusing his official position, has set aside the original assessment orders. He submits that after setting aside the assessment orders, the matters were remanded for fresh decision and the petitioner being the Income Tax Officer, took into consideration the observations and directions made in the orders passed by Tapas Kumar Dutta and thereafter passed the reassessment orders. He submits that there is no illegality in the action of the petitioner as because being a quasi judicial authority, he has applied his mind and passed orders. He submits that the orders, even if they are wrong, cannot be said to have been passed with malafide intentions after taking bribe. He submits that until and unless the Central Bureau of Investigation, in their chargesheet, comes with proof that there was a quid pro quo, this petitioner cannot be charged for committing any criminal offence, which is not there in this case. He submits that no incriminating valuables, cash etc. have been recovered from the possession of this petitioner, as in the case of Tapas Kumar Dutta from whom huge cash, gold etc. were recovered. It is submitted that the petitioner has been arrested and is in custody since 07.09.2017. He submits that there is no proof of any telephonic conversation. It is an admitted case that there is no material in the chargesheet to suggest that any incriminating cash, gold or valuables were recovered from the petitioner. He submits that in fact, the petitioner was arrested just a day before filing of the chargesheet and after completion of investigation. Since he has co-operated in the entire investigation and chargesheet has already been filed in this case, there is no necessity of custodial trial in this case.

8. After going through the records and after hearing the parties, I find that the petitioner was an Income Tax Officer and admittedly he has passed the re- assessment orders, by which the demands in respect of companies, i.e., (i) M/s. Sitara Fincon Pvt. Ltd., (ii) M/s. Trishala Vyapara Pvt. Ltd., (iii) M/s. Ontime Developers Consultant Pvt. Ltd., and (iv) M/s. Zoom Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd., were drastically reduced. The said orders were passed in terms of the provisions laid down in the Income Tax Act. The Central Bureau of Investigation has made out a case that these orders were passed without considering the relevant legal provisions and contentions raised by the department. Thus, I find that the Central Bureau of Investigation has challenged the legality, propriety and correctness of the said orders and has come to a conclusion that the said orders were passed after taking bribe. In the Chargesheet filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation, there is nothing to suggest that any illegitimate money or ill-gotten property or valuables were recovered from the possession of this petitioner. Rather, the Central Bureau of Investigation has very fairly submitted that no such things or material have been recovered from the possession of this petitioner. It admits that cash, gold and other tangible assets were recovered from the principal accused and not from this petitioner. It is also apparent that this petitioner has cooperated with the Central Bureau of Investigation during investigation as in the affidavit filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation, it is clearly mentioned that the petitioner has joined the investigation of the case as and when required, but he did not cooperate as he did not disclose the income pertaining to the crime and the proceeds thereto. To this the petitioner replied that as he did not indulge in any corrupt practices, so it was not possible for him to say about the same. This suggests that the petitioner made himself available as and when he was required to appear before the Central Bureau of Investigation. Further, I find that the petitioner was arrested on 07.09.2017 and the chargesheet was filed on the very next date. This also suggests that during investigation, petitioner cooperated with the Central Bureau of Investigation, otherwise, the Central Bureau of Investigation could have arrested the petitioner much prior to filing of the chargesheet. So far as the contention of the Central Bureau of Investigation that there may be other companies to which the benefit has been given in a similar manner for which they are also investigating, I find that in the affidavit, which has been filed in the sealed cover, it has been mentioned that the petitioner may be involved in 5 other cases, detail references whereof are not there in the affidavit, but those cases of re-assessment are not the subject matter of this FIR, which the Central Bureau of Investigation has already investigated and filed chargesheet. This also suggests that the investigation against the petitioner is absolutely complete so far as the present FIR is concerned. Further, after closure of investigation, there is no scope for presumption.