9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 160X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Income Tax Act, 1961, as against the petitioner. 2. The respondent lodged complaint for the offence under Section 276C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 alleging that during the course of the enquiry by the investigation wing, it was noticed that in the bank account maintained by the petitioner, there was unusual credit of large amount through RTGS and funds were debited for investment in the stock market. The petitioner had entered into 165 share transaction during the financial year 2007-08 and filed his return of income for the assessment year 2008-09 on 05.02.2009 declaring taxable income of Rs. 3,10,226/-. However, the petitioner has not disclosed any capital gain in the return of income filed for financial year 2007-08 relevant to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a claim for advance tax under Section 234 B of the Income Tax Act which will not be applicable in the present case. Therefore, the petitioner filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax, who passed order dated 29.09.2023 and concluded that Section 234B is not applicable and only Section 234C will be applicable. It means that due will be less than Rs. 10,00,000/-. In fact, the difference in the tax which was noticed by the respondent was already paid by the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 1,01,00,000/-. Further, the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) concluded that there is no evidence of wilful evasion of tax. As such, she prayed for quashment of the impugned proceedings. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent filed counter and s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his Court already dismissed the earlier quash petition in Crl.OP.No.3891 of 2020 filed by the petitioner challenging the initiation of prosecution in EOCC.No.401 of 2018 against the petitioner, by an order dated 28.10.2020. Now, this criminal original petition has been filed on the ground of subsequent developments. 7. The petitioner is now aged about 77 years. Admittedly, he is a Non Resident Indian. He is maintaining an account with his banker in India. The banker had deducted tax to the tune of Rs. 3,53,33,371/- instead of Rs. 4,79,08,797/-. The petitioner filed his return of income for the assessment year 2008-2009 on 05.02.2009 admitting the total income of Rs. 3,10,226/-. On perusal of the details available with the Department, it wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ently failed to appreciate that even in the unlikely event of penalty being applicable in this case. The purported tax sought to be evaded by the assessee by way of concealment of particulars of income as per the assessment officer's own admission on which penalty is levied by the assessment officer cannot be a sum of Rs. 4,56,94,344/-. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal held in the appeal No.16/10060/2019-20, the petitioner was under bonafide belief that there was no tax liability to be discharged by him on account of his residential status as NRE accounts and the TDS made by the bank. Thus, intention to conceal income by furnishing inaccurate particulars is not established. Therefore, the assessment officer was directed to delete ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
