Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2018 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (8) TMI 2074 - HC - Income TaxOffences punishable u/s 276-C(2), 278-B of the Income Tax Act - petitioners failed to comply with the requirement under Section 140-A of the Act, it directly amounts to wilful evasion of the tax liability, though admitted as the self-assessed tax - HELD THAT:- From the definitions of Tax Evasion, any act done to avoid payment of tax by illegal means either intentionally understating the income or overstating the deductions and exemptions to avoid the maximum tax liability legally due to the revenue. If, the definitions of ‘Tax Evasion’ referred supra are applied to the present facts of the case, the petitioners though admitted the tax liability by filing a revised return on 03.03.2015, they are under obligation to comply with the mandatory requirement under Section 140-A of the Act. Obviously, for different reasons, the petitioners did not choose to comply with the mandatory requirement under Section 140-A of the Act, even till date, but raised several contentions claiming additional expenditure of ₹ 54 lakhs, out of ₹ 66 lakhs disclosed in the revised return which is filed on 03.03.2015. But, the Income Tax Officer did not accept it. However, the Commissioner of Appeals passed an order which is extracted in the earlier paragraphs and aggrieved by the Warranty Service Charges (WSC) appeal is pending before the Tribunal. Till date, the petitioners did not pay the tax due to the revenue and having filed revised return admitting the tax liability it can be certainly held to be wilful evasion of tax, as it is a conscious, deliberate and calculated act of the petitioners in failing to pay the tax directly, adhering to Section 140-A of the Income Tax Act, prima facie. When the petitioners prima facie committed an offence under Section 276(C)(2) of the Act, the proceedings at this stage, more particularly, when major part of trial is completed in C.C.No.200 of 2016 on the file of Special Judge for Economic Offences at Hyderabad, the same cannot be quashed. Since, powers of this Court are limited and power under Section 482 Cr.P.C has to be exercised only in exceptional circumstances only to give effect to the orders passed by the Court and to prevent abuse of process of the Court or to meet the ends of justice. In view of the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in Bhajan Lal’s case [1990 (11) TMI 386 - SUPREME COURT] if the facts on its face value are accepted, it constitutes an offence, prima facie if proved. The Court cannot interfere, except when the Court comes to a conclusion that it is an out come of abuse of process of law. The allegations made in the chargesheet and other material filed along with the petition, including the attempts made by these petitioners would constitute offences punishable under Sections 276-C(2), 278-B of the Act. But, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that, the cause of action is ceased to subsist for continuation of proceedings, in view of the order passed by the Commissioner of Appeals is without any substance. Therefore, the grounds urged in this petition are not sufficient to quash the proceedings at this stage in C.C.No.200 of 2016 on the file of Special Judge for Economic Offences at Hyderabad. Moreover, the allegations made in the charge-sheet coupled with the material produced prima facie disclosed commission of offences by these petitioners punishable under Sections 276-C(2), 278-B of the Act. We find no ground to quash the proceedings on the file of Special Judge for Economic Offences at Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 276-C(2), 278-B.
|