MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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