TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 906X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation, 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 ci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nish his return of income within 30 days from the date of receipt of notice. The said notice was received by him on 25.02.2005. In response, petitioner furnished his return on 07.04.2005 admitting the income of Rs.33,04,420/-. The petitioner is under statutory obligation to furnish the Income Tax Return for the assessment year 1999-2000 voluntarily on or before 31.10.1999, under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. He filed the return only, after the survey and in response to the notice dated 07.04.2005, after the delay of 68 months. But for the survey, petitioner would not have furnished his return of income. The assessment was completed on 31.03.2006 and for the total income of Rs.33,04,420/- and the tax payable was determined at Rs.20,99,279/-. Penalty under Section 279(1)(C) of the Income Tax Act to the tune of Rs.9,70,159/- was imposed and was confirmed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Petitioner is a habitual defaulter in complying with the statutory obligation in maintaining regular book of accounts, audit accounts, filing the return of income on or before statutory due date and payment of tax. For the assessment year 1999- 2000, the return of income was filed af ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions, the accused would not have furnished his return of income. On a total income of Rs.1,37,26,963/-, the tax payable was determined as Rs.73,73,680/-, after giving credit for payment of tax of Rs.28,50,000/- inclusive of interest. Penalty under Section 276(1)(C) of the Income Tax Act of Rs.40,92,088/- was imposed by the assessing officer and it was confirmed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. By his wilful failure to furnish the return of income on or before the statutory due date, wilfully and deliberately concealing his true and correct income, has not given the opportunity to the assessing officer for determination of true and correct income for assessment year 2001-2002. Thus the accused committed offence punishable under Section 276CC, 276C(1) and 277 of Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. EOCC No.107 of 2015 in Crl.O.P.No.29667 of 2015 This complaint relates to assessment year 2002-2003. During the survey operations, it was found that the accused concealed income and admitted the undisclosed income of Rs.1,41,59,094/- for the assessment year 2002-2003. A statutory notice under section 148 of the Act dated 23.12.2014 was issued to the accused. Accused furnished his return ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed his return of income on 05.09.2006 admitting the income of Rs.1,03,26,809/-. This return was filed after the delay of 23 months. Tax payable was determined at Rs.42,14,667/- after giving credit to the payment of tax of Rs.9,25,000/-, inclusive of interest. An order under Section 154 was passed on 24.04.2006 determining the total income at Rs.1,03,26,809/- and the tax payable was determined at Rs.42,14,667/- raising an additional demand of Rs.42,411/-. Penalty under Section 271(1)(C) of the Income Tax Act of Rs.33,95,150/- was imposed by the assessing officer. Accused has wilfully and deliberately delayed the filing of return, wilfully and deliberately concealed his true and correct income and has not given opportunity to the assessing officer for determining his true and correct income for assessment year 2004-2005. Thus, accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 276C(1) and 276CC of Income Tax Act, 1961. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no specific allegation in the complaint about the suppression of income by the petitioner. Return of income filed by the petitioner was accepted and assessment order was passed. Therefore, there i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is no limitation for economic offences. This being an economic offence, there is no question of limitation. The judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner can be distinguished on facts. The facts in these cases are totally different. Therefore, the judgments are not applicable to the facts of this case. The legal proposition with regard to quashing of the criminal complaint is very well settled. Uncontroverted averments in the complaint, without any addition or subtraction, should be looked into, to examine whether any offence can be made out. If this proposition is applied to the facts of these cases, respondent/complainant had made out clear case for prosecuting the petitioner for the offences alleged in the complaint. Therefore, learned counsel for the respondent prayed for dismissal of these petitions. 12. Considered the rival submissions and perused the records. 13. From the complaint allegations and the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is clear that in all these cases, the concealment of income by the petitioner came to light only after a survey operation under Section 133(A) of Income Tax Act on 20.10.2004, 14.12.2004 and 15. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled on 31.08.2015 instead of 05.08.2014. Therefore, a show cause notice was issued on 14.07.2017. Finding that there is no wilful attempt to evade payment of tax, for the reason that respondent seized relevant books of accounts and that resulted in the accused not paying the tax before the stipulated time, the proceedings was quashed. The judgment reported in (2021) 126 Taxmaan.com 131 (Karnataka) (Income Tax Department ..vs.. D.K.Shivakumar) deals with the ingredients for prosecution under section 276 C(1) of Income Tax Act. There must be an intention to evade any tax, penalty or interest to bring home the charge under section 276 C(2) and there must be a wilful attempt to evade any tax or penalty or interest chargeable or imposable or under report of income for making out a case under section 276 C1 of Income Tax Act. The judgment reported in (2019) 110 Taxmaan.com 536 (Patna) (Prabir Kumar Shaw ..vs.. Union of India) was relied for the proposition with regard to the scope and ambit and powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C, where the entire liability was paid to the Government and there has not been any loss to the public exchequer. When there is no loss, allowing the case to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
