9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 906X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icals, prawn feeds and derives income thereof, besides having income from other sources. There was survey action/operation under Section 133(A) of Income Tax Act, 1961 on 20.10.2004, 14.12.2004 and 15.12.2004 in the business premises of the petitioner. It is detected during the survey that the accused despite having huge taxable income, has not been in the habit of filing return on or before the due date and pay the tax. He was not discharging his statutory obligation in compulsory maintenance of accounts and auditing under Section 44 A-B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by furnishing to the department tax report in the form C-3(d) within the stipulated time limit. In the course of survey operation under Section 133(A) of Income Tax Act, 1961, it was found that the accused had concealed income and admitted the undisclosed income of Rs.37,23,025 /- for the assessment year 1999-2000. A statutory notice under Section 143 of the Act dated 23.02.2005 was issued calling upon the petitioner to furnish his return of income within 30 days from the date of receipt of notice. The said notice was received by him on 25.02.2005. In response, petitioner furnished his return on 07.04.2005 admitting the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income on or before the statutory date, wilfully and deliberately concealed his true and correct income, has not given the opportunity to the assessing officer for determining true and correct income. Thus the accused committed offence punishable under Section 276CC, 276C(1) and 277 of Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. EOCC No.38 of 2014 in Crl.O.P.No.23071 of 2014 This complaint relates to assessment year 2001-2002. In the course of survey operations, accused explained that certain adjustments need to be made like depreciation liability for expenses, audit fees adjustment for an account of opening and closing stock. Before these adjustments the profit for assessment year 2001-2002 was Rs.1,75,54,853/-. The statutory notice dated 23.12.2004 was issued to the accused under Section 148 of the Act. Accused furnished his income of return on 19.05.2005 admitting the income of Rs.1,37,26,963/-. The return of income was filed after the delay of 50 months. But for the survey operations, the accused would not have furnished his return of income. On a total income of Rs.1,37,26,963/-, the tax payable was determined as Rs.73,73,680/-, after giving credit for payment of tax of Rs.28,50,000/- inclusi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order under Section 154 was passed on 24.04.2006 determining the total income at Rs.78,18,170/- and the tax payable was determined at Rs.34,28,972/-. Accused paid very less advance tax for the assessment year 2003-2004. Accused wilfully and deliberately delayed filing of return by 37 months, concealed his true and correct income and has not given opportunity to the assessing officer for determining his true and correct income for assessment year 2003-2004. Therefore, accused committed the offence punishable under Section 276C(1) and 276CC of Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. EOCC No.109 of 2015 in Crl.O.P.No.29669 of 2015 This complaint relates to assessment year 2004-2005. In the course of survey operations, it was found that the accused concealed income and admitted the undisclosed income of Rs.1,31,75,361/- for the assessment year 2004-2005. A statutory notice under section 148 of the Act dated 26.10.2006 was issued to the accused. Accused furnished his return of income on 05.09.2006 admitting the income of Rs.1,03,26,809/-. This return was filed after the delay of 23 months. Tax payable was determined at Rs.42,14,667/- after giving credit to the payment of tax of Rs.9,25,000/-, inclu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Officer); and (vii) Criminal Petition No.1998 of 2016 of Karnataka High Court in (CP Yogeshwar ..vs.. Income Tax Officer) 11. In response, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent submitted that there are six complaints for six assessment years. Petitioner, despite having sufficient resources, had deliberately omitted to file return of income, concealed the true and correct income, denied the opportunity of assessing his true and correct income. Only because of the survey operations, the wilful omission on the part of the petitioner to file return of income came to light. But for the survey operations, this wilful, deliberate omission to file return of income would not have come to light and the State would have been deprived of its rightful due. The petitioner had initiated the proceedings challenging the penalty imposed. The matter went upto Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. There is no limitation for economic offences. This being an economic offence, there is no question of limitation. The judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner can be distinguished on facts. The facts in these cases are totally different. Therefore, the judgments are not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner to file return of income for every assessment year within the statutory due date. Patently and obviously petitioner has not filed the return of income within the statutory date specified. It is also seen that whatever the income tax paid, advance tax paid were given credit by the respondent at the time of passing assessment order. 14. Coming to the judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is seen from the judgment reported in (2021) 124 Taxmaan.com 119 (Madras) (Rajkumar Thiyagarajan ..vs.. Income Tax Department) that it is a case where there was just a delay in filing the return of income; It is not the case where the return of income was filed after the survey under section 133(A) of the Income Tax Act. In (2020) 120 Taxmaan.com 91 (Madras) (Kewalchand M.Kothari ..vs.. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax), the income return for the assessment year 2013-2014 was filed on 31.08.2015 instead of 05.08.2014. Therefore, a show cause notice was issued on 14.07.2017. Finding that there is no wilful attempt to evade payment of tax, for the reason that respondent seized relevant books of accounts and that resulted in the accused not paying the tax before the stipu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
