Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2022 (6) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (6) TMI 906 - HC - Income TaxOffence punishable u/s 276CC, 276C(1) and 277 of Income Tax Act - proof of concealment of income by the petitioner - HELD THAT:- As the concealment of income by the petitioner came to light only after a survey operation under Section 133(A) on 20.10.2004, 14.12.2004 and 15.12.2004. After finding concealment of income, a statutory notice under Section 148 was given. Then the petitioner filed his return of income. The tax payable was determined. It is not in dispute that in all the cases, the return of income was filed in consequence of survey operation under section 133(A) of the Act and in response to notice u/s 148 with the delay of several months, as indicated earlier. It is the claim of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no specific allegation of suppression of income in the complaint - reading of the complaint shows that there is a specific allegation that the petitioner concealed the income, but for the survey operation, would not have filed the return of income and paid the taxes. By concealing the income, petitioner deprived the exchequer, payment of tax for several months. Thus, this Court is of the view that there are enough and specific allegations made with regard to concealment of income by the petitioner. As the amount of income suppressed is substantial. The concealment/suppression of income came to light only after the survey. If the survey was not conducted, the concealment of income would not have come to light at all. Only after the statutory notice under section 148 was issued, petitioner filed return of income and then, it was assessed. The wilful and deliberate concealment of true and correct income by not filing the return of income within the time stipulated is clearly and plainly evident from the facts of this case. From the case laws pressed into service, it was found that there was no wilful intention to conceal the income and there was no wilful delay in filing the return. However, facts of this case are totally different and therefore, this Court is of the view that the judgments relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. The complaint allegations, if taken as it is, clearly make out a case for prosecuting the petitioner for the offences mentioned in the complaint. This Court is of the considered view that this case must go to trial and the trial Court has to take informed decision by recording the evidence of the parties. In this view of the matter, this Court finds no merit in all these petitions and all these six Criminal Original Petitions are dismissed.
|