1937 (4) TMI 20 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Conviction under Secs. 182, 193, and 196 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Interpretation of Sec. 52 of the Indian Income-tax Act regarding false statements in the return.
3. Application of Sec. 182 of the Indian Penal Code to the submission of false information.
4. Offence under Sec. 193 of the Indian Penal Code for false verification in judicial proceedings.
5. Offence under Secs. 193-196 of the Indian Penal Code for using false evidence in judicial proceedings.
6. Sentencing considerations for the accused.

Analysis:

1. The applicant was convicted under Secs. 182, 193, and 196 of the Indian Penal Code, resulting in a one-year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of &8377; 1,000. The charges included providing false information to the Income-tax Officer, making false statements in the return of income, and using fabricated evidence during judicial proceedings.

2. The interpretation of Sec. 52 of the Indian Income-tax Act was crucial in determining the validity of the return submitted by the applicant. The Act deems a false statement in the verification clause as an offence under Sec. 177 of the Indian Penal Code, but it does not cover false statements in the statement of income itself.

3. The application of Sec. 182 of the Indian Penal Code to the submission of false information was contested. The section applies to providing false information to a public servant, regardless of whether it was voluntarily given. In this case, the applicant's false return led to a conviction under Sec. 182 due to the intention to deceive the public servant.

4. The charge under Sec. 193 of the Indian Penal Code was based on the false verification clause attached to the statement of income during judicial proceedings. While the lower courts held it as giving false evidence, the higher court questioned whether a statement in the return of income could be considered evidence in proceedings before the Income-tax Officer.

5. The third charge involved the applicant's use of false evidence during judicial proceedings, leading to an offence under Secs. 193-196 of the Indian Penal Code. The court upheld the conviction as the applicant attempted to use fabricated evidence to support the accuracy of his income return.

6. Considering the sentencing, the court reduced the overall sentence to six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of &8377; 2,000, taking into account the age of the accused. The sentence was to run concurrently, with a provision for further imprisonment in case of default in fine payment.