MUMBAI: 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 an investigation into alleged illegal foreign remittances of over Rs 200 crore through bogus tax certificates.The Economic Offences Wing (EOW) is probing allegations that chartered accountants and company directors colluded to set up shell companies between 2021-22 and 2024-25. According to the prosecution, forged Form 15CB certificates were submitted to the Income Tax Department, enabling remittances of about Rs 2,575.83 crore and tax evasion. Bhat allegedly issued 163 certificates for eight companies, involving Rs 200.58 crore.Judge Vikram R Jagdale observed that Bhat had not properly examined or verified the account books, agreements and documents of the eight companies before issuing the certificates. The court said he had failed to follow guidelines under an RBI circular and the Income Tax Rules. It further noted that he had allegedly shown lower income in returns and failed to deduct TDS.The judge rejected Bhat’s contention that his digital signature had been misused, noting that his police complaint was filed after the offence was registered. The court termed it an “after thought” intended to avoid liability and create a false defence. Holding that the material indicated Bhat’s prima facie complicity, the court said his custodial interrogation was necessary to uncover the fraud. It added that granting pre-arrest bail could hamper investigation. Bhat’s lawyers argued that he had practised as a chartered accountant for five decades and was based in Bengaluru, while staff reportedly handled his Mumbai office.They claimed the staff had misused his digital signature, prompting him to lodge a complaint with Andheri police. He had cooperated with investigators and provided documents. Opposing the plea, the prosecution alleged that Bhat conspired with co-accused and facilitated overseas transfers using bogus documents. It said he failed to verify the papers before certifying the transactions and that custodial interrogation was essential given the seriousness of the offence.
Discover more from updatview
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
