81-year-old Bengaluru CA helps 8 companies send Rs 200 crore overseas, seeks protection from arrest after tax evasion probe, blames staff misused his digital signature

An 81-year-old Bengaluru-based chartered accountant, Seetaram Bhat, allegedly issued 163 Form 15CB certificates for eight companies involved in foreign remittances worth Rs 200.58 crore. When investigators questioned his role, Bhat claimed that employees at his Mumbai office had misused his digital signature to issue the certificates, reports TOI's Rebecca Samervel.

A Mumbai special court has rejected his anticipatory bail application in the case, observing that Bhat allegedly issued the certificates without properly verifying the documents submitted by the companies. The court also questioned why he filed a police complaint alleging misuse of his digital signature only after the offence had been registered against him.

EOW investigating alleged Rs 2,575 crore foreign remittance racket

The Economic Offences Wing (EOW) is investigating allegations of fraudulent foreign remittances facilitated through bogus tax certificates.


According to the prosecution, chartered accountants and company directors allegedly colluded to establish shell companies between 2021-22 and 2024-25. Forged Form 15CB certificates were allegedly submitted to the Income Tax Department to facilitate overseas money transfers.

The investigation concerns foreign remittances totalling approximately Rs 2,575.83 crore and alleged tax evasion.

Bhat's alleged role relates to eight companies for which he issued 163 Form 15CB certificates. These certificates were linked to remittances worth Rs 200.58 crore.

Form 15CB is a certificate issued by a chartered accountant in connection with certain payments being sent outside India. It deals with the tax implications of the proposed remittance and is used as part of the documentation for foreign transfers.

CA claims Mumbai office staff misused his digital signature

Seeking anticipatory bail, Bhat's lawyers told the court that he had practised as a chartered accountant for five decades and was based in Bengaluru.

They argued that employees handled his Mumbai office and had allegedly misused his digital signature to issue the certificates. Bhat had subsequently approached Andheri police and lodged a complaint regarding the alleged misuse.

His lawyers also submitted that he had cooperated with investigators and provided documents in connection with the investigation.

The defence sought protection from arrest, arguing that Bhat was not required to be taken into custody.

The prosecution opposed the application, alleging that Bhat had conspired with other accused persons to facilitate overseas transfers using bogus documents.

It argued that he had failed to properly verify the documents before certifying the transactions. Given the scale of the alleged financial transactions and the number of certificates involved, the prosecution said his custodial interrogation was necessary.

Court questions verification of eight companies' documents

Rejecting the anticipatory bail plea, Judge Vikram R Jagdale observed that Bhat had allegedly failed to properly examine the account books, agreements and other documents of the eight companies before issuing the certificates.

The court also referred to the guidelines under an RBI circular and the Income Tax Rules, observing that the alleged failure to follow the prescribed requirements was relevant to the investigation.

The court further noted allegations that Bhat had shown lower income in his returns and failed to deduct tax at source (TDS).

On his claim that employees had misused his digital signature, the court examined the timing of his police complaint.

Bhat's complaint to the police came after the offence had already been registered against him. The court described the complaint as an "after thought", observing that it appeared intended to avoid liability and create a defence in the case.

The court also considered the prosecution's allegations about the certificates and the transactions they facilitated while examining whether Bhat should receive protection from arrest.

Court says custodial interrogation necessary

The special court held that the material presented during the bail proceedings indicated Bhat's prima facie involvement in the alleged offence.

It said custodial interrogation was necessary to uncover the alleged fraud and investigate the role of the accused persons. The court also observed that granting anticipatory bail at this stage could hamper the investigation.

Judge Jagdale consequently rejected Bhat's plea for pre-arrest bail.

(With TOI inputs)