[ad_1]
NEW DELHI: Supreme Court has reiterated that orders of the income tax authorities, including the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal are not conclusive proof which can be relied upon for discharge of the accused persons in disproportionate assets case.
Referring to a 2017 verdict in the Jayalalithaa case, a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and K V Viswanathan said income tax assessment orders are apropos tax liability on income and they do not necessarily attest to the lawfulness of the sources of income.
“This Court, in Selvi J. Jayalalithaa (supra), was concerned with an appeal against an order of acquittal passed in a case of disproportionate assets under Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The accused persons therein had sought to place reliance on I-T returns and I-T assessment orders. In that context the Court had concluded that income tax returns and orders are not by themselves conclusive proof that they are lawful sources of income under Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and that independent evidence to corroborate the same would be required,” the bench said.
It said that income tax returns/orders might be admissible as evidence but its probative value would depend on the nature of the information furnished and findings recorded in the order, and would not ipso facto either conclusively prove or disprove a charge.
The bench turned down the plea of former additional chief architect of NDMC R C Sabharwal seeking discharge in corruption case on the basis of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal order in his favour.
“Therefore, in the present case, the probative value of the Orders of the I-T Authorities, including the Order of the I-T Appellate Tribunal and the subsequent Assessment Orders, are not conclusive proof which can be relied upon for discharge of the accused persons. These orders, their findings, and their probative value, are a matter for a full-fledged trial. In view of the same, HC, in the present case, has rightly not discharged the appellants based on the Orders of the Income Tax Authorities,” the court said.
Referring to a 2017 verdict in the Jayalalithaa case, a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and K V Viswanathan said income tax assessment orders are apropos tax liability on income and they do not necessarily attest to the lawfulness of the sources of income.
“This Court, in Selvi J. Jayalalithaa (supra), was concerned with an appeal against an order of acquittal passed in a case of disproportionate assets under Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The accused persons therein had sought to place reliance on I-T returns and I-T assessment orders. In that context the Court had concluded that income tax returns and orders are not by themselves conclusive proof that they are lawful sources of income under Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and that independent evidence to corroborate the same would be required,” the bench said.
It said that income tax returns/orders might be admissible as evidence but its probative value would depend on the nature of the information furnished and findings recorded in the order, and would not ipso facto either conclusively prove or disprove a charge.
The bench turned down the plea of former additional chief architect of NDMC R C Sabharwal seeking discharge in corruption case on the basis of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal order in his favour.
“Therefore, in the present case, the probative value of the Orders of the I-T Authorities, including the Order of the I-T Appellate Tribunal and the subsequent Assessment Orders, are not conclusive proof which can be relied upon for discharge of the accused persons. These orders, their findings, and their probative value, are a matter for a full-fledged trial. In view of the same, HC, in the present case, has rightly not discharged the appellants based on the Orders of the Income Tax Authorities,” the court said.
[ad_2]
Source link
