TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 353X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vade tax. The petitioners have substantiated their contention by giving cogent and convincing reasons for submitting original tax returns with some errors. Thus, it cannot be inferred from the facts of the present case that a deliberate attempt was made by the petitioners to evade the tax. There is no material to arrive to a conclusion that there is false statement of verification or filing of false return and thereby penal provisions are not attracted. Continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners would amount to abuse of process of the Court and thereby it is a fit case to quash the proceedings against the petitioners on the file of Special Judge for Economic Offences at Hyderabad. - CRIMINAL PETITION No.7697 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 10-1-2023 - HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D. NAGARJUN For the Petitioners : Sri T. Niaranjan Reddy, learned senior counsel representing Sri Vikas Joshi, learned counsel accused Nos. 1 and 2 as well as Sri B. For the Respondent : Narsimha Sharma, learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department. ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by petitioners - accused Nos. 1 and 2 under Section 482 of the Code of Crimina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 24.08.2017 04597 8,05,40,000/- 2 0013283 12.01.2018 03084 11,75,40,000/- 3 0013283 19.01.2018 05242 7,83,60,330/- Total 27,64,40,330/- iii) On pointing out the facts, M/s. Vivimed Labs Ltd (PAN: AAACV6060A) e-filed its revised return of income for assessment year 2017-18 on 01.02.2018. The return of income was verified by the petitioner No. 2 being CEO and MD of the petitioner No. 1 company. As per the revised returns filed on 01.02.2018, the Company has returned an income of Rs. 182,90,11,360/- and the tax liability thereon was computed at Rs. 38,72,26,150/-. As seen from the column 10 of Part B TTI Computation of tax liability on total income (pages 21 and 22 of returns of income), the details of taxes paid are shown as under: Advance Tax - Rs. 30,00,000/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... after taking into account the amount of tax, if any, already paid under any provision of the Act and any tax deducted or collected at source, the assessee is liable to pay such tax, together with interest if any, before furnishing the return and the return shall be accompanied by proof of payment of such tax. Sub-Section (3) of Section 140A lays down that where any assessee fails to pay the tax or interest or both, without prejudice to any other consequence, he will be deemed to be an asessee in default in respect of the tax or interest or both remaining unpaid in which event all the provision of this Act are to apply accordingly. The assessee had filed the return of income under Section 139 but did not pay the admitted tax on the returned income, which the assessee was required to pay in terms of Section 140-A of the Act. To give the impression that it has compiled with the statutory requirement of Section 140A, the company has made a false claim of payment of self-assessment tax to the extent of Rs. 27,64,40,330/- by giving some false challan numbers and dates of payment. vi) This attempt of the company in making the false claim squarely falls within the meaning of explanati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 182,90,11,360/- 6 Net Tax Payable 38,72,26,150/- 7 Taxes Paid 7a Advance Tax 30,00,000/- 7b TDS 77,15,781/- 7c TCS 70,044/- 7d Self Asst Tax 37,64,40,330/- 7e Total Taxes Paid 38,72,26,155/- 8 Amount payable 0/- TAB C (Shown in original return submitted on 1.02.2018) Column Particular Rs. Amount 3 Total Income 182,90,11,360/- 6 Net Tax Payable 38,72,26,150/- 7 Taxes Paid 7a Advance Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd the revised return was filed on 01.02.2018 under proper acknowledgment and the ITR was transferred to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer on 21.05.2018 and revised return of income was also transferred to the jurisdictional assessing officer on 21.05.2018 itself as evidence from e-portable of CPC, Bangalore. Thus, the jurisdiction over the returns of the income for the assessment year 2017-18 was not vested with ACIT/DCIT Central Circle, Hyderabad upto the date of transfer of returns of income i.e., upto 21.05.2018. Hence, order of sanction which was accorded by the respondent No. 1 dated 14.03.2018 for filing complaint under Section 276 C (2) and 277 of the Income Tax Act 1961 and subsequent filing of complain in the Court of Special Judge for Economic Offences at Hyderabad on 23.03.2018 are clearly premature and as on the date without jurisdiction. g) The petitioners have filed the revised income returns voluntarily and without any notice from the Assessing Officer on this aspect. Thus, the allegation of the complainant that the assessee company has attempted to make a false claim as envisaged under explanation (iv) Section 276 C is incorrect as there is no willful atte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unched against the assessee. Though show cause notice was issued by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Hyderabad to assessee-accused on 16.02.2018, the assessee did not comply. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused has submitted that original return of income was filed on 22.01.2018 under Section 139 (4) of the Income Tax Act and after identifying that there was an error in filling up the columns of the return relating to the tax payments electronically, revised returns under Section 139 (5) of the Income Tax Act and filed on 01.02.2018 rectifying the mistakes, voluntarily. Thus, the situation for filing the revised return is occurred due to bonafide omission/mistake and it is a valid return that has substituted the return of income originally filed on 22.01.2018. The original return filed on 22.01.2018 is not in existence and no action under the provisions of Income Tax Act are permissible on the said original return and if any, such action is proposed to be taken or taken, the said action shall not be sustainable and is bad in law. It is further submitted that after filing the revised return, substantial amount was paid by the company towards tax l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g revised returns immediately after noticing error on their part indicate that it was a case of delayed payment of tax or deferred payment. The subsequent tax amount paid by the petitioners was accepted by the Department without any reservations. Such delay in the payment will not amount to willful attempt to evade tax. The petitioners have substantiated their contention by giving cogent and convincing reasons for submitting original tax returns with some errors. Thus, it cannot be inferred from the facts of the present case that a deliberate attempt was made by the petitioners to evade the tax. There is no material to arrive to a conclusion that there is false statement of verification or filing of false return and thereby penal provisions are not attracted. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon authority in Confident Projects (India) (P) Ltd., v. Income Tax Department, Circle, 2 (1)(1), Bengaluri (2021) 124 taxman.com 36 (Karnataka), wherein High Court of Karnataka held as follows: 9.12. For an offence to be said to be committed under Section 277 of the Income Tax Act, the misstatement is required to be willful made with a malafide or dishonest intention ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
