Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

The Bombay High Court has discharged a former Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCIT) in a corruption case registered against him in 2015.

Anil Goel, the former CCIT, was booked by the CBI Cochin under the Prevention of Corruption Act for allegedly staying in a guesthouse without paying any rent.

The CCIT allegedly occupied the guesthouse belonging to Heera Constructions from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2015.

According to the CBI, Heera Constructions fell within Goel's IT assessment jurisdiction. The agency claimed that Goel's act of staying in the flat without paying rent amounted to an offence under Section 11 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Goel was granted bail in September 2022 after a charge sheet was filed against him, with the court noting that he was never arrested during the investigation.

The FIR was registered against Goel by the Cochin CBI. However, on an application made by him, the case was transferred to Mumbai. Goel then filed a discharge application before the Special judge which came to be rejected against which he filed a revision application before the high court.

Goel argued that he paid Rs. 50,000 towards utility charges and occupied only a single room in the flat. He claimed that he did not receive any valuable thing, as mentioned under Section 11, and that he occupied the house only after it was shown by an Income Tax Officer.

The bench of Justice Bharathi Dangre noted that merely because an assessee falls within his jurisdiction, it cannot be said that the ingredients of Section 11 are made out.

“In absence of establishing that the flat has been enjoyed free of cost and it has a connect with the duty to be discharged by the Applicant in relation to the assessee, merely because a assessee fall within his jurisdiction, it cannot be said that the ingredients of Section 11 are made out. Hence, the applicant has been wrongly chargesheeted and deserve a discharge," the order reads.

The bench further added that Goel was asked to occupy the said flat by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) and was never apprised that he shall bear the rent for the same.

“Whether the Applicant had any knowledge about the requirement of payment of rent is an important question and, since, he was asked to occupy the said flat by the ITO, and was never apprised that he shall bear the rent for the same, it cannot be accepted that he was aware about the rent to be paid and the flat is leased out by the owner to M/s Heera Constructions,” the bench said

Case title: Anil Goel vs UOI