Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2015 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (1) TMI 975 - HC - Income TaxResponsibility to pay tds - false documents - Order for acquittal - assessee had claimed the refund on the basis of forged TDS certificates submitted in his income tax return, through respondent-accused Sudesh Kumar, Advocate - Held that:- As is evident from the record that the complainant-ITO claimed that the main assessee has submitted the income tax return for the assessment year 1987-88 claiming a refund of ₹ 3395/- based on false TDS certificate through respondent-accused Sudesh Sharma, Advocate. Strange enough, the complainant ITO had not filed any complaint against the main assessee and only arrayed the respondent Advocate as an accused, who was stated to have submitted the income tax return on his behalf. Meaning thereby, the respondent-accused had only submitted the income tax return along with all the pointed documents on behalf of main assessee. In other words, all the TDS certificates, which were purported to have been issued by the Northern Railway, were supplied by the main assessee to his Advocate. It was the main assessee, who had procured the documents from the concerned authorities and claimed the refund. In case, the main assessee had claimed the refund on the basis of forged TDS certificates, then, the Income Tax Authorities were competent and well within their jurisdiction to reject his claim of refund under the relevant provisions of The Income Tax Act. Thereafter, the aggrieved party had a right to file the statutory appeal in this relevant connection. Be that as it may, therefore, in that eventuality, the respondent-accused, who was an Advocate, had just submitted the income tax return on behalf of main assessee, cannot possibly be and indeed could not be held liable for criminal prosecution for procuring the documents by main assessee in order to attract the penal provisions of indicated offences, as contrary urged on behalf of complainant-ITO Meaning thereby, the trial Court has examined the matter in the right perspective and correctly acquitted the respondent-accused. The learned counsel for petitioners did not point out any material, much less cogent, so as to warrant any interference in the impugned judgments of acquittal. Such articulated impugned judgments of acquittal, containing valid reasons, cannot possibly be interfered with in exercise of limited jurisdiction under section 378(4)Cr.PC by this court, unless and until, the same are illegal, perverse and without jurisdiction. Since no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for petitioners, so, the impugned judgments of acquittal deserve to be and are hereby maintained for the reasons mentioned here-in-above in the obtaining circumstances of the case.
|