Akash Samanta v. The State Of Jharkhand. 2.Income Tax Department Through Assistant Commissioner, Income Tax, Circle 3, Ranchi. .. ... ...Opp. Party(S

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A. B. A. No. 8467 of 2022 Akash Samanta . .... .. ... Petitioner(s)Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand.2.Income Tax Department through Assistant Commissioner, Income Tax, Circle 3, Ranchi. .. ... ...Opp. Party(s) ........... CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY ......... For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Rishav KumarFor the State : Mr. Rahul Saboo, GP.II Mr. Abhilash Kumar, AC to GP.IIFor the O.P. No.2 : Mr. R. N. Sahay, Sr. Advocate Mr. Ankit Kumar, Advocate …... 04/ 08.12.2022.Apprehending his arrest, petitioner above-named has moved this Court for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Economic Office (Complaint) Case No.49/2019 registered under Sections 276 CC read with Section 278B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Heard the parties. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner is one of the Directors of M/s. Samanta Precision Works Pvt. Ltd.) and is engaged in business of trading in gold ornaments. On verification of transactions undertaken by the assesse company, it was found that during demonetization period i.e. 08.11.2016 to 30.12.2016, the said company had deposited amounting to Rs.2 Crore 13 Lakhs only, but failed to file return of the income tax for the financial year 2017-2018. A survey operation was also conducted at the business premises of the assessee company under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act on 22.02.2017 and the petitioner could not explain the source of deposit of cash into Bank account during the period of demonetization. It was submitted by petitioner that the said company had stock of Rs.3 Crore, but on physical verification, it was found value of the stock was only of 2 Lakh 40 thousand. It is submitted by learned counsel that the petitioner is that allegation is not of tax evasion but of not filing the Income Tax Return for a particular financial year had been filing returns on time, but it was not filed for that particular period since the documents and bills were seized by the Income Tax authorities. The amount deposited in the account was not income, rather it was the sale proceeds of the jewelleries. Learned GP I for the State has opposed the prayer. -2- Learned counsel for the Income Tax Department while opposing the prayer has submitted that it is a case of impounding of documents and not of seizure of documents. The petitioner had not filed the income tax return for the said year despite repeated reminders. It is further submitted that huge amount i.e. Rs.2,13,00,000/- was deposited in the account of petitioner’s company for which the Income Tax Department issued notice under Section 135 of the Income Tax Act for filing return, but the return was never filed with an intention to evade the income tax. It is submitted that only a survey was conducted in the premise of the said company, but nothing was seized and there was no seizure, but only few documents were impounded and Rs.2,00,000/- was found. Considering the submissions of learned counsel and the fact as discussed above, the anticipatory bail application is allowed. Hence, in the event of his arrest or surrender within a period of two weeks from the date of this order, the petitioner named above shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Court below, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) Cr. P.C. The petitioner will co-operate in the investigation and will appear on notice under Section 41 A of Cr.P.C. and comply with the condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)