9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 119X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccused had no such culpable mental state with respect to the act charged as an offence in that prosecution - if the accused has to prove a fact to dislodge the presumption under Section 278E of the Income Tax Act, the accused has to prove the fact in such a manner that the court believes it to exist beyond reasonable doubt and such a presumption of culpable mental state cannot be dislodged by mere preponderance of probability . This Court finds that in the present case, the foundational facts to convict the petitioner have been duly proved by the prosecution. The learned courts have rightly relied upon the legal presumption of culpable mental state on the part of the petitioner in terms of Section 278E of the Income Tax Act. Nothing credible has been brought on record by the petitioner to dislodge the presumption of culpable mental state . The petitioner was required to prove his case beyond all reasonable doubts and not on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities , which the petitioner has failed to do. This Court is of the considered view that both the learned courts have duly considered the materials and attending facts on record and also the provisions of law and have r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the learned trial court as well as that of the learned appellate court below is illegal, perverse and perfunctory, as such liable to be set aside. (ii) For that the judgement passed by learned trial court as well as learned appellate court below is illegal on its face itself. (iii) For that the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court below has failed to exercise jurisdiction judiciously and as such, the judgement suffers from illegality. (iv) For that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish charge against the petitioner. (v) For that the Complainant PW-2 himself has not supported the case at all. (vi) For that the entire prosecution case is itself ill motivated in view of the fact that simple colliery worker is not deemed to be an expert to fill the technical Form-16 of I.T. ACT and he stated in show cause that he got it filled by office Assistant O.C.P. and as such, the Complainant on the basis of show cause ought to have closed the proceeding as there was absolutely no mens rea. (vii) For that the learned trial court has failed to consider that the offence is itself compoundable and the petitioner has option for the same. (viii) For that other and fu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unda and the claim was based on fake and false documents and thus, no refund was granted. The petitioner tried to shift the burden on one Satyaban Roy, an Office Assistant of Baramuri OCP, ECL, Mugma Area, Chirkunda. It was the further case of the Complainant that the petitioner was quite aware of his income, earnings and investments and knowingly, willingly, intentionally, deliberately and with an evil motive furnished inaccurate particulars of his income and housing loan in the return for the assessment year 2003-04 under his signature on verification of the said return and thus from examination of relevant documents of the petitioner, it was apparent that he had claimed a false refund of Rs. 35,875/- on the strength of forged TDS certificate and interest on housing loan, etc. and had made statement in the verification portion of his Income Tax Return for the relevant assessment year which was false, which he knew to be false and himself did not believe to be true and thus he made himself liable to be prosecuted for an offence under Section 277 of the Income Tax Act. Further case of the prosecution was that the Commissioner of Income Tax, Dhanbad after considering all the facts a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me other documents to prove its case. 11. After closure of prosecution evidence, the statements of petitioner were recorded under Section 313 of CrPC on 12.05.2015 wherein he denied the incriminating evidences put to him and claimed to be innocent. The petitioner did not examine any witness, but he filed certified copy of C.O. Case No.26/2004 which has been marked as Exhibit-A and certified copy of C.O. Case No.27/2004 which has been marked as Exhibit-B in his defence. 12. The learned trial court considered the entire materials on record vide Paragraph-9 of the trial Court judgment and recorded its finding at Paragraph-12 which reads as under: 12. -------------------------------------------------------------- A critical appraisal of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that in order to attribute criminal liability under this section, prosecution is mandatorily required to establish that accused person either knowingly or at least having reason to believe that statement made in verification is false, has furnished it, with an intention to evade any tax payable. Therefore, germane of the offence lies in wilful furnishing of false facts in verification. If the evidences available on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t that under good faith, he has put his signature over unfilled form of Return. If plea taken by the accused person is examined in the light of evidence available on record, it becomes crystal clear that the accused person having knowledge of the fact that the said document can be misused put his signature and thus agreed to bear the risk, because the law does not permit such type of lame excuses and thus same cannot be considered. Therefore, under the circumstances the court is of the opinion that prosecution has been able to establish the factum of furnishing false particulars by the accused person in verification portion of return, by cogent, credible and consistent evidence. In order to rebut the evidence available on record, the accused person has although adduced no witness, but has categorically pleaded that he being ignorant with provisions of Income Tax Act has put his signature under bonafide belief, on blank papers which were later on misused. Having due regard to the plea taken by the accused person, the court is of the opinion that when a person signs a document, there is a presumption, under Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act, that he has read the document properly an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... do not find any substance on the argument advanced by the learned counsel for accused/appellant. 21. The oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of complainant clearly proved that the accused furnished his return supported with fake and fabricated paper and the appellant/ accused had knowingly verified on his return based on a false claim and he did not adduce any evidence to absolve him from the liability fastened U/s 278(E) of the Income Tax Act read with 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, due to non-discharge of onus by the accused and prosecution being able to prove the charge U/s 277 of Income Tax Act levelled against accused /appellant beyond all reasonable doubts, this Court finds that the learned court below has rightly held him guilty under aforesaid section. I have also gone through the sentence awarded by the learned court below and I find that same is proportionate to the offence committed as this type of offences are required to be severely dealt so that it could not disturb the economic condition of the country. Thus, I do not find any merit in this appeal accordingly this appeal is hereby dismissed. The appellant is on bail. His bail bond is cancelle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Exhibit-15) and letter (Exhibit-15/1) filed by the petitioner have been marked exhibits without any objection from the side of the petitioner. 18. This Court further finds that Exhibit-13 is the Saral Form (Income Tax Return for the Assessment Year 2003-04) filed by the petitioner which has also been marked exhibit without any objection from the side of the petitioner and it carries the signature of the petitioner. Exhibit-13/1 is the computation of income of the petitioner, Exhibit-13/2 is the TDS Certificate filed by the petitioner and Exhibit-13/3 is the letter regarding deduction of tax produced by the petitioner and all have been found to be forged and containing wrong facts during inquiry by the Income Tax Department. Exhibit-10 and Exhibit-10/1 are the verification report regarding the TDS that the claim for refund based on excess deduction of tax at source was wrong and the claim for refund were wrong. 19. This Court further finds that there is no challenge from the side of the petitioner to the findings of the learned courts that the refund claim was based on forged documents relating to TDS Certificate and claim of benefit relating to payment of interest on housing loan. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the accused has to prove the fact in such a manner that the court believes it to exist beyond reasonable doubt and such a presumption of culpable mental state cannot be dislodged by mere preponderance of probability . 23. This Court finds that in the present case, the foundational facts to convict the petitioner have been duly proved by the prosecution. The learned courts have rightly relied upon the legal presumption of culpable mental state on the part of the petitioner in terms of Section 278E of the Income Tax Act. Nothing credible has been brought on record by the petitioner to dislodge the presumption of culpable mental state . The petitioner was required to prove his case beyond all reasonable doubts and not on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities , which the petitioner has failed to do. 24. This Court is of the considered view that both the learned courts have duly considered the materials and attending facts on record and also the provisions of law and have recorded concurrent findings while convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 277 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. There is no perversity, illegality or material irregularity in the impugned judgme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
