Burman had sought permission to travel to Dubai from May 3-7
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Devendra Kumar Sharma rejected 73-year-old Burman's plea to go abroad saying it was a private meeting and his business interest would not be hampered if he skips it.
"It is clear that it is not the case of the applicant that he has to attend meeting of Board of Directors. Instead the applicant has to attend a family shareholders council which has no statutory sanction under the Companies Act.
"It is a kind of private meeting of the family members and therefore, it cannot be said that any business interest is going to be hampered of the applicant. Thus, this court is of the opinion that no ground is made out for permission to visit abroad," the court said, adding the plea was devoid of merits.
Burman had submitted in his plea that a meeting of Board of Directors of Dabur India was scheduled at Dubai on May 5 and he was one of the promoters and shareholders of the firm.
The plea had said that a family shareholders council will also be held there and he has to participate in it to discuss and assess the impact of decision of the Board.
It had sought permission to travel to Dubai from May 3 to May 7 saying he was invited along with other family members.
The plea, however, was opposed by Income Tax Department on the ground that there was no extradition treaty with UAE and Burman was not a member of Board of Directors in Dabur India and that there was no ground to visit Dubai.
The court had earlier also denied permission to Burman to travel to Hong Kong to attend a family function.
The court has fixed Friday for recording pre-charge evidence in two alleged tax evasion cases involving Burman, who was earlier granted bail.
The court had earlier granted bail to Burman but barred him from leaving the country without its permission.
The department has booked him for offences punishable under sections 276C(1)(willful attempt to evade tax, penalty, interest), 276D (failure to produce accounts and documents) and 277 (false statement in verification) of the IT Act.
The IT department's complaint had said when Burman was questioned, he denied having any account in foreign banks but later when confronted with several documents, he allegedly admitted having accounts abroad.
Two separate cases were lodged against Burman under the IT Act for the offences relating to concealment of income and tax evasion. The cases relate to assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08. He had an account in HSBC, Zurich (Switzerland) which he had not disclosed in his return initially, it said.
The court, after taking cognisance of the complaint, had summoned Burman as accused.
IT department's counsel had earlier said "the present case is out of several cases in respect to black money for which investigation is on by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) constituted by the Supreme Court of India."
The Centre on October 27 last had disclosed before the apex court eight more names including that of Burman, a bullion trader, and Goa miners against whom it has started prosecution for allegedly stashing black money in foreign banks.
Shortly after the disclosure in the Supreme Court, Dabur India promoter family, Burmans had said the account complied with all legal requirements.
“We wish to state that this account was opened when he (Pradip) was an NRI, and was legally allowed to open this account," a Dabur spokesperson had said in a statement.