Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Right to Be Considered for Promotion, Not a Right to Promotion: Supreme Court Clarifies Eligibility for Retrospective Promotion    |     Inherent Power of Courts Can Recall Admission of Insufficiently Stamped Documents: Supreme Court    |     Courts Cannot Substitute Their Opinion for Security Agencies in Threat Perception Assessments: J&K High Court Directs Reassessment of Political Leader's Threat Perception    |     Service Law | Violation of Natural Justice: Discharge Without Notice or Reason: Gauhati High Court Orders Reinstatement and Regularization of Circle Organizers    |     Jharkhand High Court Quashes Family Court Order, Reaffirms Jurisdiction Based on Minor’s Ordinary Residence in Delhi    |     Ex-Serviceman Status Ceases After First Employment in Government Job: Calcutta High Court Upholds SBI’s Cancellation of Ex-Serviceman's Appointment Over False Declaration of Employment    |     Maxim Res Ipsa Loquitur Applies When State Instrumentalities Are Directly Responsible: Delhi High Court Orders MCD to Pay ₹10 Lakhs Compensation for Death    |     Wilful Avoidance of Service Must Be Established Before Passing Ex Parte Order Under Section 126(2) CrPC: Patna High Court Sets Aside Ex Parte Maintenance Order    |     MP High Court Imposes Rs. 10,000 Costs for Prolonging Litigation, Upholds Eviction of Petitioners from Father's Property    |    

Findings in Income Tax Proceedings Not Conclusive for Criminal Cases: Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court today upheld the framing of charges against Puneet Sabharwal and R.C. Sabharwal in a disproportionate assets case, asserting that findings in income tax proceedings do not hold conclusive value in criminal trials. The bench, led by Justices Vikram Nath and K.V. Viswanathan, stated, “The probative value of income tax returns/orders does not ipso facto either conclusively prove or disprove a charge” ([Para 33]), thereby dismissing the appeals filed by the Sabharwals under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The judgment hinged on the delineation between the outcomes in income tax assessments and their influence on criminal proceedings. The Supreme Court addressed whether conclusions drawn by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the appellants’ favor could affect the ongoing criminal prosecution for alleged possession of disproportionate assets.

Charges were leveled against the Sabharwals for holding assets that were allegedly disproportionate to their known sources of income. The defense leaned on the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal’s decision, which hadn’t found substantial evidence against them in the tax-related proceedings.

The apex court firmly differentiated the standards of proof in criminal law from those in income tax proceedings. It emphasized that income tax assessments and orders are not definitive in criminal trials, stating, “Income tax returns and orders are not by themselves conclusive proof” ([Para 29]). The court noted that the income tax proceedings’ findings couldn’t nullify the criminal charges. It further reiterated the principle that the framing of charges in a criminal trial does not demand conclusive proof of guilt, underlining that a strong suspicion based on material evidence is sufficient at this stage, with full defenses reserved for the trial ([Paras 43-44]).

Rejecting the appeals of Puneet and R.C. Sabharwal, the Supreme Court found no grounds to discharge them from the charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The court ordered a swift conclusion to the trial, clarifying that the observations made were specific to the context of discharge proceedings ([Para 46]).

Date of Decision: March 19, 2024

Puneet Sabharwal vs CBI

Similar News