Four supplementary prosecution complaints filed against Gautam Khaitan in Income Tax special court


ANI | New Delhi | Updated: 11-06-2019 12:59 IST | Created: 11-06-2019 12:51 IST
Four supplementary prosecution complaints filed against Gautam Khaitan in Income Tax special court
The Income Tax department has received fresh evidence which shows that Gautam Khaitan was maintaining three more bank accounts in his own name in Singapore. Image Credit: ANI
  • Country:
  • India

On June 7, the Directorate of Income Tax (investigation) has filed four supplementary prosecution complaints for the fiscal year 2009-10 to 2012-13 before the income-tax special court against Gautam Khaitan, who is also one of the accused in the Rs 3,600 crore AgustaWestland scam. These complaints have been filed for the offence under section 276C (1) (willful attempt to evade tax) and 277 (giving a false statement on oath) of the Income-tax Act 1961.

The Income Tax department had earlier filed five complaints in 2017 under Income Tax Act 1961 against Khaitan for maintaining four bank accounts in Singapore in the name of BVI based shell companies as well as his own name. Later, four complaints were filed under Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act against Gautam and Ms Ritu Khaitan in 2018.

The Income Tax department has received fresh evidence which shows that Gautam Khaitan was maintaining three more bank accounts in his own name in Singapore. He had not disclosed his ownership of these bank accounts before the tax authorities. There are substantial credit entries in these bank accounts. The income tax department had recently recorded his statement in Tihar Jail.

Khaitan is one of the accused in the Rs 3,600 crore AgustaWestland VVIP chopper scam. He was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate pursuant to an investigation under the Act, on January 26. As per the prosecution, Khaitan had deposited nearly Rs. 6,000 crore in offshore accounts. Notably, a charge sheet has also been filed against Khaitan, for violation of provisions under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. 

(This story has not been edited by Devdiscourse staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

Give Feedback