Even 1.5 Years in Jail Doesn’t Dilute Section 37 NDPS Rigour: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail in 710 Kg Poppy Husk Case Stay of Conviction Nullifies Disqualification Under Section 8(3) RP Act: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Quo Warranto Against Rahul Gandhi Custodial Interrogation Necessary to Uncover ₹2 Crore MGNREGA Scam: Kerala High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail for Vendors in Corruption Case Order 41 Rule 23 CPC | Trial Court Cannot Decide Title Solely on a Vacated Judgment: Himachal Pradesh High Court Strikes By Bar Associations Cannot Stall Justice: Allahabad High Court Holds Office Bearers Liable for Contempt if Revenue Suits Are Delayed Due to Boycotts To Constitute a Service PE, Services Must Be Furnished Within India Through Employees Present in India: Delhi High Court Medical Negligence | State Liable for Loss of Vision in Botched Cataract Surgeries: Gauhati High Court Awards Compensation Waiver of Right Under Section 50 NDPS is Valid Even Without Panch Signatures: Bombay High Court Agricultural Land Is 'Property' Under Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937: A.P. High Court Tenant Who Pays Rent After Verifying Landlord’s Will Cannot Dispute His Title Under Section 116 Evidence Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Dismisses Eviction Challenge by HP State Cooperative Bank Clever Drafting Cannot Override Limitation Bar: Gujarat High Court Rejects Suit for Specific Performance Once Divorce by Mutual Consent Is Final, Wife Cannot Pursue Criminal Case for Stridhan Without Reserving Right to Do So: Himachal Pradesh High Court Caste-Based Insults Must Show Intent – Mere Abuse Not Enough for Atrocities Act: Gujarat High Court Upholds Acquittal Failure to Inform Detenu of Right to Represent to Detaining Authority Vitiates NSA Detention: Gauhati High Court Awarding Further Interest On Penal Charges Is Contrary To Fundamental Policy Of Indian Arbitration Law: Bombay High Court

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

Latest Legal News