The Income Tax Department had, with an ulterior motive, included charges of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code as the Enforcement Directorate (ED) could not have come into the picture if it were charges only under the I-T Act, it was contended on behalf of Water Resources Minister D.K. Shivakumar and others before the Karnataka High Court on Thursday.
Pointing out that the offences under the I-T Act are not “scheduled offences” under the provisions of the Preventions of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), it was contended that inclusion of Section 120B against them, alleging criminal conspiracy, was not proper when the alleged offences under Sections 276C(1) [wilfully attempt to evade tax], 277 [giving false statement in variation] of the I-T Act are “compoundable” in nature.
Senior counsel Kapil Sibal, appearing for Mr. Shivakumar, claimed that the ED’s notice for appearing for questioning does not give any specific reason for appearance while contending that ED’s enforcement case information report (ECIR) is a procedure not known to law, and the petitioner has no information available to defend himself.
Justice Aravind Kumar, who heard the petitions filed by Mr. Shivakumar and others, adjourned further hearing till March 11 to enable the counsel for the ED to reply to the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners.
Mr. Shivakumar and his associates, Sachin Narayan and Sunil Kumar Sharma, both residents of Bengaluru, Anjaneya Hanumanthaiah and Rajendra N., residents of New Delhi, have questioned the notice issued by the ED asking them to appear before it.
When the counsel for the ED pointed out that the petitioners were not given any further date for appearance, the court said the petitioners would be at liberty to seek time for appearance till next date of hearing.