Prolonged Pre-Trial Detention and Right to Liberty Cannot Be Ignored” - Punjab & Haryana High Court Emphasizes Bail as the Rule Taxation Law | Andhra Pradesh High Court Rules Hotel’s Expenditures on Carpets, Mattresses, and Lampshades are Deductible as Current Expenditures Orissa High Court Upholds Disengagement of Teacher for Unauthorized Absence and Suppression of Facts In Disciplined Forces, Transfers are an Administrative Necessity; Judicial Interference is Limited to Cases of Proven Mala Fide: Patna High Court Act Of Judge, When Free From Oblique Motive, Cannot Be Questioned: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes Disciplinary Proceedings Against Additional Collector Registration Act | False Statements in Conveyance Documents Qualify for Prosecution Under Registration Act: Kerala High Court When Junior is Promoted, Senior’s Case Cannot be Deferred Unjustly: Karnataka High Court in Sealed Cover Promotion Dispute Medical Training Standards Cannot Be Lowered, Even for Disability’ in MBBS Admission Case: Delhi HC Suspicion, However Strong It May Be, Cannot Take Place Of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Acquittal No Detention Order Can Rely on Grounds Already Quashed: High Court Sets Precedent on Preventive Detention Limits Tenant's Claims of Hardship and Landlord's Alternate Accommodations Insufficient to Prevent Eviction: Allahabad HC Further Custodial Detention May Not Be Necessary: Calcutta High Court Grants Bail in Murder Case Citing Lack of Specific Evidence High Court, As A Constitutional Court Of Record, Possesses The Inherent Power To Correct Its Own Record: Bombay High Court A Fresh Section 11 Arbitration Petition Without Liberty Granted at the Time of Withdrawal is Not Maintainable: Supreme Court; Principles of Order 23 CPC Applied Adult Sexual Predators Ought Not To Be Dealt With Leniency Or Extended Misplaced Sympathy: Sikkim High Court Retired Employee Entitled to Interest on Delayed Leave Encashment Despite Absence of Statutory Provision: Delhi HC Punjab and Haryana High Court Grants Full Disability Pension and Service Element for Life to Army Veteran Taxation Law | Director Must Be Given Notice to Prove Lack of Negligence: Telangana High Court Quashes Order Against Director in Tax Recovery Case High Court of Uttarakhand Acquits Defendants in High-Profile Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence In Cases of Financial Distress, Imposing A Mandatory Deposit Under Negotiable Instruments Act May Jeopardize Appellant’s Right To Appeal: Rajasthan 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

Similar News