9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 792X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot pay the same while filing the returns, although the declaration was made by the petitioner that the tax liability has been discharged. While the returns were processed under section 143 (1) of the Act, a demand of Rs. 1,11,730/-, culminated and since no payments had been made, demand was raised, which was deposited on 15.11.2016, pursuant to the letter dated 09.11.2016, issued by the Assessing Officer. Thus, alleging evasion of tax falling within the purview of willful attempt of evasion to pay taxes under section 276C (2), the Petitioner was prosecuted under section 277 of the Act and for which, sanction to launch the prosecution was taken from Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, Jamshedpur, under section 279 of the Income Tax Act. 4. Mr. N.K. Pasari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is engaged in the business of trading of tractors for and on behalf of Mahindra and Mahindra, as a franchisee and is a tax assessee, holding PAN No. ARGPS1760G and has been discharging his tax liability as and when the same has accrued, save and except for the period for which, the lis relates. He submits that for the Assessment year 2011-2012, corresponding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... He further submits that that has been done ignoring the guidelines dated 14.06.2019, issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that no case under the relevant Sections of the Income Tax Act is made out, as this is not a tax evasion case, as the only latches on the part of the petitioner is that he has deposited the tax after certain period. He further submits that there is no proceeding pending against the petitioner with regard to recovery of any due tax amount and in view of that no willful default of payment of tax on behalf of petitioner is made out. On these grounds, he submits that the entire criminal proceedings may kindly be quashed. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is fully covered in light of the judgment of this court in the case of Pralay Pal Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors., passed in Cr.M.P. No. 2266 of 2017 decided on 23.08.2023 and also reported in MANU/JH/1079/2023. He refers to Paras-8 to 12 of the said judgment, which is quoted hereinbelow:- "8. Looking into the aforesaid judgment, it transpires that a criminal prosecution for an of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce by Statute proceeds on the assumption that society suffers injury by and the act or omission of the defaulter and that a deterrent must be imposed to discourage the repetition of the offence. In the case of a proceeding under s. 271(1)(a), however, it seems that the intention of the legislature is to emphasise the fact of loss of Revenue and to provide a remedy for such loss, although no doubt an element of coercion is present in the penalty. In this connection the terms in which the penalty falls to be measured is significant. Unless there is something in the language of the statute indicating the need of establish the element of mens tea it is generally sufficient to prove that a default in complying with the statute has occurred. In our opinion, there is nothing in s. 271(1)(a) which requires that mens tea must be proved before penalty can be levied under that provision. We are supported by the statement in Corpus Juris Secundum, volume 85, page 580, paragraph 1023: "A penalty imposed for a tax delinquency is a civil obligation, remedial and coercive in its nature, and is far different from the penalty for a crime or a fine or forfeiture provided as punishment for the viola ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty has been paid by the petitioner neglecting the National Litigation Policy and in view of that a case of tax evasion is made out against the petitioner. He submits that petitioner has defaulted in payment of self-assessment of tax on his admitted income for the other years also. He further submits that the officer of the Income Tax Department has observed that the tax has not been paid that's why the criminal case is justified. He submits that in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of West Bengal and another; reported in [(2011) 3 SCC 437], the criminal proceeding can go on. On these grounds, he submits that this writ petition may kindly be dismissed. 11. In view of the above submissions of the parties, the court has gone through the materials available on record and finds that admittedly the petitioner has submitted the income tax return pointing out the liability for the year 2011-12, however along with the return the tax liability was not deposited, which was deposited later on. Thus, it is crystal clear that the tax amount has already been deposited, however, after certain delay and that was deposited with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
