Top Stories No Provision for FIR Under Income Tax Act: Punjab & Haryana HC Grants Bail to Accused in Bogus Refund Scam [Read Order] The court stated that in the event of arrest, the petitioner would be entitled to interim anticipatory bail upon furnishing appropriate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Investigating or Arresting Officer By Navasree A.M – On May 18, 2025 5:16 pm – 2 mins read The Punjab and Haryana High Court granted interim anticipatory bail to an accused involved in an alleged bogus income tax refund scam, observing that there exists no provision under the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the registration of a First Information Report (FIR). The petition was filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No. 38 dated April 10, 2025, registered at Police Station Cantt., Ferozepur.

The FIR invoked Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, along with Section 277 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Want a deeper insight into the Income Tax Bill, 2025? Click here The counsels for the petitioner, Adv. Nitin Sherwal and Adv. Satish Goel contended there is no provision in Income tax Act for registration of FIR and that offences under Section 277 of the Income Tax Act are non-cognizable as per Section 279-A of the Act. It was further argued that the complainant lacked competence to initiate proceedings under Section 279(1) read with Section 116 of the Act. Also read: ITR filing Mandatory for High-Value Withdrawals, Even for POA Holders: Madras HC Upholds Income Tax Notice Against Advocate The petitioner, a Class 12th pass individual working as a data entry operator, was neither a qualified Chartered Accountant nor directly linked with any prima facie document or private complaint relating to the alleged forgery, asserted the counsels before the court. The counsels added that the maximum punishment for the offences listed in the FIR is up to seven years, and no notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS (previously Section 41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) had been issued to the petitioner. It was also stated that the petitioner has clean antecedents and is not involved in any other criminal case.

While issuing notice of motion returnable for July 16, 2025, Justice Harpreet Singh Brar referred to several landmark Supreme Court judgments, including Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and directed the petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer within two weeks and comply with further instructions. Know Practical Aspects of Tax Planning, Click Here Also read: Rs. 3L Income Tax Refund for AY 2015-16 Pending: Madras HC directs ITO to Consider Representation within 6 weeks on its Receipt The court stated that in the event of arrest, the petitioner would be entitled to interim anticipatory bail upon furnishing appropriate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Investigating or Arresting Officer.

It was further clarified that in case the petitioner is not allowed to join the investigation by the arresting officer, he may appear before the Illaqa Magistrate, who shall ensure compliance by summoning the Investigating Officer. The bench added that “Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion by this Court and learned trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits, strictly in accordance with law.”