Daijiworld Media Network - Mumbai
Mumbai, Nov 8: A special court under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (MPID) Act on Saturday rejected the anticipatory bail plea of 81-year-old chartered accountant Seetaram Bhat in a case involving alleged illegal foreign remittances of over Rs 200 crore through bogus tax certificates.
The Economic Offences Wing (EOW) is investigating allegations that chartered accountants and company directors colluded to establish shell companies between 2021-22 and 2024-25. According to the prosecution, forged Form 15CB certificates were submitted to the Income Tax Department, facilitating overseas remittances of around Rs 2,575.83 crore and tax evasion.
Bhat allegedly issued 163 certificates for eight companies, involving transactions worth Rs 200.58 crore.
Judge Vikram R Jagdale observed that Bhat had not properly examined or verified the account books, agreements and other documents of the eight companies before issuing the certificates. The court noted that he had allegedly failed to follow the guidelines prescribed under an RBI circular and the Income Tax Rules. It also observed that he had allegedly shown lower income in his returns and failed to deduct tax at source (TDS).
The judge rejected Bhat's contention that his digital signature had been misused, pointing out that his police complaint was filed after the offence had been registered. The court described the claim as an “after thought” intended to avoid liability and create a false defence.
Holding that the material on record indicated Bhat's prima facie complicity in the alleged offence, the court said his custodial interrogation was necessary to uncover the fraud. It further observed that granting him pre-arrest bail could hamper the investigation.
Bhat's lawyers argued that he had practised as a chartered accountant for five decades and was based in Bengaluru, while his staff reportedly handled his Mumbai office.
They claimed that the staff had misused his digital signature, following which he lodged a complaint with the Andheri police. The defence also submitted that Bhat had cooperated with investigators and provided the required documents.
Opposing the anticipatory bail plea, the prosecution alleged that Bhat had conspired with the co-accused and facilitated overseas transfers using bogus documents. It maintained that he had failed to verify the relevant papers before certifying the transactions and argued that custodial interrogation was essential given the seriousness of the alleged offence.