9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (2) TMI 1919 - HC - Income TaxOffence punishable under Sections 276(1) 277 - petitioner had willfully and deliberately filed the return of income on 29.07.2002 without reflecting the investment in the form of bank balance in a foreign bank account thereby attempted to evade the tax - Also petitioner had stated false statement in verification under the Act and false return of income for the Assessment Year 2002-03 - Commissioner (Appeals) has observed such he has reduced the penalty from 300% to 100% for the reason that when these things were brought to the notice of the petitioner he accepted and agreed for the addition without protest. On this score alone the Commissioner (Appeals) has reduced the penalty - HELD THAT -here are two things for this Court to analyse here. One is that the penalty can be reduced / waived under Section 273A of the Act provided the assessee should voluntarily and in good faith made full and true disclosure of particulars and also has co-operated in any enquiry relating to the assessment of his income and has either paid or made satisfactory arrangements for the payment. Here in the case on hand admittedly the petitioner has paid the tax amount without protest and in the meantime without prejudice to his stand. In other words the petitioner can still fight for his case. Moreover the provision is very clear that the assessee should voluntarily give such disclosure. It does not brush aside the fact that the petitioner has not satisfied the ingredients of Section 273A of the Act ie. made disclosures voluntarily and in good faith. The next thing for this Court to analyse here is that Clause 5 of Section 273A of the Act clearly says that every order made under this Section shall be final and shall not be called into question by any court or any other authority. But the order which the petitioner refers here for his rescue ie. the order dated 25.03.2014 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 250(6) of the Act is an appealable order and the same has already been put under challenge by the Department before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal where the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was upheld. Therefore it is clear that the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) reducing the penalty is not an order under Section 273A of the Act and therefore this Court with due respect to the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court is inclined to infer that Section 279(1A) of the Act will not come to the rescue of the petitioner. Since all the grounds raised by the petitioner for quashing the complaint lack merits this Criminal Original Petition is liable to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed. Considering the age of the proceedings the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offences 1) Egmore is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Issues Involved:
1. Limitation in issuing the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. 2. Use of unauthenticated documents by the prosecution. 3. Impact of reduced penalty on criminal proceedings under Section 279(1A) of the Income Tax Act. 4. Dispensation of personal appearance of the petitioner before the trial court. Detailed Analysis: 1. Limitation in Issuing the Notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act: The petitioner contended that the assessment proceedings were barred by limitation as per Section 149(1)(b) of the Act. The petitioner argued that the sum endowed on 24.03.2000 and the outstanding sum as on 31.12.2001 could not be subject to assessment for the year 2002-03. The respondent countered that the tax appeal and criminal case are independent, and there is no limitation for launching criminal cases for economic offences as per the Economic Offences (Inapplicability of Limitation) Act, 1974. The court held that the criminal prosecution over the alleged economic offence must be tried before the appropriate court of law, and the first ground raised by the petitioner lacked merit. 2. Use of Unauthenticated Documents by the Prosecution: The petitioner argued that the documents relied upon by the prosecution were xerox copies and unauthenticated, thus having no legal value under Section 78(6) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The court noted that the documents were obtained from German Tax Authorities under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement Scheme with the Government of India, and their authenticity was evidenced by initials. The court concluded that it is for the trial court to decide the authenticity of the documents and rejected the second ground raised by the petitioner. 3. Impact of Reduced Penalty on Criminal Proceedings under Section 279(1A) of the Income Tax Act: The petitioner argued that since the penalty imposed was reduced by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), criminal proceedings should be dropped as per Section 279(1A) of the Act. The court clarified that Section 279(1A) applies only when the penalty is reduced or waived by an order under Section 273A of the Act. In this case, the reduction of penalty from 300% to 100% was not under Section 273A but under Section 250(6). The court highlighted that the petitioner did not satisfy the conditions of voluntary and good faith disclosure as required under Section 273A. Therefore, the third ground raised by the petitioner was not accepted. 4. Dispensation of Personal Appearance of the Petitioner Before the Trial Court: After the judgment was pronounced, the petitioner sought to dispense with his personal appearance before the trial court due to his age and health ailments. The court noted that it is barred under Section 362 Cr.P.C. from altering its judgment after it is signed. The court suggested that the petitioner could seek relief under Section 205 Cr.P.C. before the trial court for dispensing with his appearance. The court concluded that no clarification was required and did not alter its previous order. Conclusion: The court dismissed the Criminal Original Petition, directing the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offences – 1), Egmore, to expedite the trial. The court emphasized that the issues of limitation, authenticity of documents, and impact of reduced penalty on criminal proceedings were not sufficient grounds for quashing the complaint. The petitioner's request for dispensing with personal appearance was also not entertained by the court, as it was barred by Section 362 Cr.P.C.
|
