9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Application for income tax certificate based on false information, conviction under section 277 of the Income Tax Act, applicability of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, imposition of sentence, concurrent running of sentences.
Analysis: The judgment revolves around a revision petition where the respondent had applied for an income tax certificate under false pretenses, leading to a conviction under section 277 of the Income Tax Act and section 193 of the Indian Penal Code. The respondent had initially claimed to have minimal income and assets, but upon investigation, it was discovered that he owned additional properties and was running a petrol pump. The Judicial Magistrate convicted the respondent, sentencing him to six months of rigorous imprisonment for each offense, along with a fine. The Sessions Judge, upon appeal, maintained the conviction but ordered the respondent's release on probation of good conduct for a year under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. However, the revision petition challenged this order, citing section 292-A of the Income Tax Act, which bars the application of the Probation of Offenders Act to individuals above eighteen years convicted under the Income Tax Act. The court acknowledged the enactment of section 292-A post the offense and emphasized the gravity of economic offenses like the one committed by the respondent. The court rejected the leniency plea, stating that the concealment of property and income was a serious offense, leading to the introduction of specific provisions denying probation benefits to defaulters. The court highlighted the applicability of section 277(ii) of the Income Tax Act, prescribing rigorous imprisonment ranging from three months to three years, along with a fine. While probation could have been an option for the offense under section 193 of the Indian Penal Code, the concurrent conviction under section 277 necessitated a sentence for both offenses to avoid contradictions. Consequently, the court accepted the revision petition, setting aside the probation order and sentencing the respondent to three months of rigorous imprisonment and a fine under section 277, and an additional three months of rigorous imprisonment under section 193. In case of default in fine payment, the respondent would undergo an additional two months of rigorous imprisonment, with both sentences running concurrently.
|
