Bombay High Court closes corruption case against former Chief Commissioner of Income Tax

The Bombay High Court recently discharged a former Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCIT) in a corruption case dating back to 2015. [Anil Goel v. Union of India & Ors.].Anil Goel, who served as CCIT in Kerala, was accused of occupying a flat in Thiruvananthapuram without paying rent. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) claimed that this was an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act) since the flat was leased out by a construction company that fell under Goel's jurisdiction. The CBI alleged that a prima facie offence under Section 11 (public servant obtaining valuable thing, without consideration from person concerned) of the PC Act was made out against Goel..Justice Bharati Dangre found that the prosecution had failed to establish that the flat was being enjoyed "free of cost" since Goel was still paying utility bills and maintenance charges. It also failed to prove that Goel's stay had any connection with his duty as a CCIT, the judge added."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 Court concluded..Goel was booked by the Anti-Corruption Bureau of the CBI, Cochin in December 2015 under the provisions of the PC Act.The charges against him were that while functioning as CCIT Kerala between January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2015, he occupied a flat (guesthouse) belonging to Heera Constructions without payment of any rent.CBI noted that Heera Constructions fell within Goel's IT assessment jurisdiction and claimed that the act of staying in the flat without payment of rent amounted to an offence under Section 11 of the PC Act.Goel was granted bail in the matter on September 19, 2022 after chargesheet was filed and after the Court noted that he had never been arrested during the investigation of the case. .After this, he filed an application seeking discharge from the case. He argued that he had not unduly benefitted or enjoyed unjust enrichment because he stayed at the flat. He added that he paid maintenance and utility charges amounting to ₹50,000 a month and that he had only used one room in the flat for eight months. He asserted that none of these acts amounted to his receiving any "valuable thing" as mentioned under Section 11 of the PC Act. The Court was also told that he occupied the flat after he was shown the premises by an Income Tax Officer. Having heard rival submissions, Justice Dangre eventually discharged Goel from the case while also factoring in that it was unlikely that Goel was even aware of the flat's ownership and rental requirements. "Whether the Applicant [Goel] 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 Court observed..Therefore, the Court allowed Goel's application and directed his discharge from the corruption case. .Senior advocate Aabad Ponda with advocates Adithya Iyer, Aishwarya Kanthawala, Advait Helekar, Manuj Borkar and Nyayosh Bharucha appeared for Goel.Advocates Shriram Shirsat, Shekhar Mane, Janvi Mate and Karishma Rajesh appeared for the ACB, CBI, Cochin..[Read order]