2001 (6) TMI 34 - HC - Income Tax

Court dismisses petitions challenging tax evasion complaints against company directors. Tax authorities' findings not binding in criminal proceedings.

The court dismissed the petitions seeking to quash complaints against company directors and employees for alleged tax evasion through false vouchers. The ... Offences And Prosecution, Wilful Attempt To Evade Tax, False Verification Issues Involved:1. Quashing of complaints filed against company directors and employees.2. Impact of Settlement Commission's order on the complaints.3. Relevance of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's order on the complaints.4. Validity of reassessment orders on the complaints.5. Binding nature of findings by tax authorities on criminal proceedings.Detailed Analysis:Quashing of Complaints:The applications were filed by the directors and employees of the companies seeking to quash complaints filed by the Income-tax Officer for offences under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the Income-tax Act, 1961. The complaints alleged that the companies inflated their expenditures by creating false vouchers to evade income tax. The trial court had taken these complaints on file.Impact of Settlement Commission's Order:One petitioner, Mrs. Indira D. Kothari, had an application before the Settlement Commission, which passed an order on January 28, 1993, stating that employees were not fictitious and payments were made to them. The petitioners argued that this nullified the complaints. However, the court noted that the Settlement Commission's order was specific to an individual assessment and not the companies, and thus would not impact the allegations in the complaints.Relevance of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's Order:The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, on August 27, 1993, set aside earlier assessment orders and called for fresh assessments. The petitioners claimed this changed the complexion of the allegations. However, the court found that the Tribunal's order did not directly address the specific allegations in the complaints, and thus did not nullify the basis for the complaints.Validity of Reassessment Orders:The fresh assessment by the Additional Commissioner on January 5, 1996, treated 70% of the amount as excess remuneration to directors, which the petitioners argued legitimized the expenses. The court held that the reassessment order did not absolve the accused of the offences alleged in the complaints, as these orders did not address the specific allegations of false vouchers and inflated expenditures.Binding Nature of Findings by Tax Authorities on Criminal Proceedings:The court emphasized that findings by tax authorities, including the Settlement Commission and Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, are not binding on criminal courts. The criminal court must independently assess the evidence presented. The court noted that while tax authority findings should be given due regard, they do not automatically nullify criminal proceedings unless they directly address the allegations in the complaints.Conclusion:The court dismissed the petitions for quashing the complaints, stating that the orders from the Settlement Commission, Tribunal, and reassessment did not provide findings that nullified the specific allegations in the complaints. The criminal proceedings must proceed independently, and the trial court will decide the case based on the evidence presented, uninfluenced by the observations made in this judgment.