2015 (3) TMI 573 - HC - Income Tax

Convicting the petitioner under sections 276C and 277 - Held that - Firstly, coming to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in respect of non-getting a sanction before filing a complaint, a perusal of the complaint would clearly go to show that after getting proper sanction only, the complaint has been lodged against the petitioner herein and the same was taken cognizance by the learned magistrate concerned as narrated above. Hence, this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner has got no force. Secondly, coming to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that the Income-tax Department used to show some sort of privilege to some assessees like big personalities, a perusal of the judgment in Crl. A. No. 241 of 2001 which was produced by the learned special public prosecutor for the respondent would go to show that in similar circumstances as that of the present case, a case has been instituted against another Income-tax assessee and the trial court has convicted the accused accordingly and the appellate court only acquitted the accused on technicality. At this stage, it is represented by the learned special public prosecutor that after obtaining leave from this court, the offence has been compounded. Therefore, there is no merit in this revision

Summary

Issues Involved:
- Conviction under sections 276C and 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961
- Sanction for filing the complaint
- Allegations of privilege and discrimination in prosecution by the Income-tax Department

Analysis:
1. Conviction under sections 276C and 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The petitioner was convicted under sections 276C and 277 of the Income-tax Act based on a complaint filed by the respondent. The petitioner claimed exemption under the head of interest on house building advance in his tax returns, which was deemed false. The trial court convicted the petitioner, and the appellate court upheld the conviction. The revision was filed to set aside these orders.

2. Sanction for filing the complaint:
The petitioner's counsel argued that the complaint was lodged without proper approval, alleging discrimination by the respondent in targeting salaried individuals like the petitioner while ignoring high-income earners. However, the court found that the complaint was filed after obtaining proper sanction, dismissing the contention of lack of approval as baseless.

3. Allegations of privilege and discrimination in prosecution:
The petitioner's counsel raised concerns about the Income-tax Department showing favoritism towards certain taxpayers. The court referenced a previous judgment where a similar case led to conviction, emphasizing equality before the law. The court rejected the argument of privilege and discrimination, stating that all individuals are treated equally under the law.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the revision, finding no merit in the petitioner's arguments. The respondent was directed to consider any application for relief within 90 days. The petitioner had also filed a separate writ petition challenging the respondent's order, which was pending. The court instructed the respondent to comply with the court's order after finality in the writ petition. The criminal revision case was disposed of with these observations.