Court again refuses to allow Dabur's Burman to go abroad

Dabur promoter Pradip Burman, whose name has cropped up in the blackmoney list, was today once again stopped from going abroad by a Delhi court which said there was an apprehension that he could flee.
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) Devendra Kumar Sharma, rejected Burman's application saying no fresh ground is made out after the dismissal of his earlier plea on January 20 and the plea was without any merit.
This was the second time in three days that Burman's plea to go abroad has been rejected by the court.
Burman, who had earlier sought permission to travel to Hong Kong to attend his elder brother's death anniversary, had moved another plea yesterday choosing a new ground that he wanted to attend the 70th birthday of his brother's wife.

During the arguments today, Income Tax (IT) Department's standing counsel Brijesh Garg opposed the plea saying India does not have double taxation agreement with Hong Kong, and if the accused does not return, it would be difficult to bring him back.
"Moreover, there is apprehension on behalf of the complainant (IT department) that the accused may flee from the jurisdiction of the court to such a jurisdiction from where he cannot be brought back.

"This apprehension of the complainant finds force as there is no treaty between India and Hong Kong even for the purposes of taxation and in this regard, document is placed on record on behalf of the complainant," the court said.

Burman is facing prosecution in a complaint filed by IT Department alleging that he was holding foreign bank accounts which he had not disclosed in his income tax returns and there were undisclosed deposits in those two accounts.
Seeking a review of the court's order dismissing his plea to go abroad from January 23 to January 26, Burman's counsel submitted that his client wished to go to Hong Kong to attend birthday party of his deceased brother's wife as it was an "emotional" issue and he wanted to be with his family members.
IT Department's counsel argued that the plea was not maintainable as this court did not have the power to review its own order.