Top
Begin typing your search above and press return to search.

Investigation Initiated against Non-disclosure of PAN number and TDS for Registration of Sale Deed : SC disallows Anticipatory Bail filed u/s 438 of CrPC [Read Order]

Investigation Initiated against Non-disclosure of PAN number and TDS for Registration of Sale Deed : SC disallows Anticipatory Bail filed u/s 438 of CrPC [Read Order]
X

In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India quashed the anticipatory bail filed under section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against the investigation initiated for non-disclosure of PAN number and Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) for the registration of sale deed. Pratibha Manchanda, the appellant assessee appealed against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and...


In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India quashed the anticipatory bail filed under section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against the investigation initiated for non-disclosure of PAN number and Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) for the registration of sale deed. 

Pratibha Manchanda, the appellant assessee appealed against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana for allowing the petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and granted anticipatory bail to the respondent. 

Saket Sikri, the counsel for the assessee contended that the assessee owns the original sale deed for the subject land, and a true copy of it was attached to the complaint. 

Also submitted that in collusion with other accused persons, has carried out an elaborate fraud against the assessee, who is vulnerable owing to their age and the NRI status. 

Further submitted that the accused had failed to provide a PAN Number, which was mandatorily required for a valid sale deed and no mention of the 1% amount of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) also forms part of the requirements for execution and registration of a sale deed. 

Maninder Singh, the counsel for the respondent contended that filing a civil suit did not absolve them of criminal liability and the anticipatory bail was to be granted only in exceptional circumstances, as a person under pre­arrest bail may not disclose all the relevant facts under questioning, due to the safeguard provided under the provisions. 

The Court observed that the involvement of the criminal justice system, initiated by the assessee, might be an attempt to settle certain transactions and resolve ongoing disputes between them. 

Also observed that the cancellation of Bail should be done only for substantial and compelling reasons. 

The two-member panel comprising Surya Kant and C.T Ravikumar quashed the anticipatory bail passed by the High Court while allowing the appeal filed by the assessee. 

To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates

Next Story

Related Stories

Advertisement
Advertisement
All Rights Reserved. Copyright @2019