False income-tax return and fabricated accounts can trigger IPC liability, but a return is not evidence for section 193.
A false income-tax return furnished to a public servant with the object of influencing assessment attracted liability under section 182 IPC, and the conviction on that count was upheld. The false verification attached to the return was not treated as false evidence in a judicial proceeding for section 193 IPC because a return is not evidence in the relevant enquiry, and that conviction was set aside. Dishonest reliance on false account books in the income-tax enquiry amounted to using fabricated evidence as true within section 196 IPC, so that conviction was upheld. The result was partial affirmance, quashing of one charge, and reduction of the aggregate sentence.
Issues: (i) whether a false statement in the income-tax return attracted liability under section 182 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; (ii) whether the false verification attached to the return constituted false evidence in a judicial proceeding so as to attract section 193 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; and (iii) whether production and reliance on false account books in the enquiry before the Income-tax Officer amounted to using fabricated evidence so as to attract section 196 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Issue (i): whether a false statement in the income-tax return attracted liability under section 182 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Analysis: The return itself contained information furnished to a public servant with the object of influencing the assessment. The provision was not confined to information given voluntarily. The falsity of the accounts necessarily established the falsity of the income stated in the return, and the ingredient of intent to cause the public servant to act on a false state of facts was satisfied.
Conclusion: The conviction under section 182 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was upheld.
Issue (ii): whether the false verification attached to the return constituted false evidence in a judicial proceeding so as to attract section 193 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Analysis: Proceedings before the Income-tax Officer become judicial proceedings only when an enquiry starts under the Act. A statement contained in the return is not evidence given in such proceedings. Section 52 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 specifically dealt with a false verification and treated it as an offence under section 177 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, showing that section 193 was not intended to apply to that act.
Conclusion: The conviction under section 193 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was set aside.
Issue (iii): whether production and reliance on false account books in the enquiry before the Income-tax Officer amounted to using fabricated evidence so as to attract section 196 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Analysis: Mere production of a document in obedience to an order does not always amount to using it as evidence. But where the assessee relies on the document to support the truth of his return, the user is dishonest and the document is used as true or genuine evidence within the meaning of the penal provision.
Conclusion: The conviction under section 196 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was upheld.
Final Conclusion: The conviction was sustained in part, one charge was quashed, and the aggregate sentence was reduced accordingly.
Ratio Decidendi: A false return submitted to an income-tax authority may attract section 182 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, but the return itself is not evidence in a judicial proceeding for section 193; however, dishonest reliance on false account books in the enquiry may amount to using fabricated evidence for section 196.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
