2018 (6) TMI 103 - HC - Income Tax

Business Convicted of Tax Evasion, Partner Acquitted; Court Emphasizes Need for Compelling Evidence

The accused business was convicted for intentional income tax evasion under Sections 276-C, 277, and 278-B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court found ... Evasion of taxes - complaint under Sections 276C and 277 r.w.s 278B - Prosecution proceedings - Whether accused Pardeep Kumar, is the partner of accused No.1 and has willfully attempted to evade the tax, penalty and interest chargeable, imposable under the Income tax Act? - Method of accounting u/s 145 - cash credits u/s 68 - impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court confirmed by Additional Sessions Judge - Held that:- It has been rightly contended for the learned counsel for the respondent that Rajinder Singh has not been examined as a witness in the Court who recorded their statements so those statements cannot be taken into evidence as per rules of law of evidence. A criminal Court has to decide the case on the basis of independent evidence. It cannot base the conviction on the report submitted by the Assessment Valuation Officer, on the basis of which the department has made the assessment of the income of the assessee. The offence of abetment has not been proved to be committed by respondent No.1 and 2. The law is well settled that the revisional jurisdiction of this Court is quite limited - the Court is to interfere only if there is an illegality or infirmity apparent on the face of the judgment/order passed by a Court below - since there is no illegality or infirmity with the impugned orders the petition stands dismissed. Issues:1. Assessment of income tax evasion under Sections 276 C, 277, and 278 B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Allegations of intentional evasion of tax and penalty chargeable and imposable under the Act.3. Conviction and sentencing of the accused for offenses under the mentioned sections.4. Acquittal of certain accused and appeal against the judgment.Issue 1: Assessment of Income Tax EvasionThe case involved a complaint filed by the Income Tax Officer against a business accused of drawing substantial income by selling sweets and meals. The accused had filed an income tax return for a specific year, but upon examination, new credits were found to be introduced. The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment under Section 143(2)(b) due to discrepancies in the documents attached to the return. The accused were required to produce evidence to support the return, but certain aspects such as the purchase of empty card board boxes were not accounted for. Consequently, the sales were estimated higher than declared, and new cash credits were deemed bogus, leading to penalty proceedings being initiated.Issue 2: Allegations of Intentional EvasionThe accused were found to have intentionally created circumstances to evade tax and penalty chargeable under the Act. Certain credits introduced in the return were proven to be false, and the accused partners were implicated in assisting the firm in evading tax and penalty. The court observed deliberate actions by the accused to underreport income and inflate expenses, leading to the assessment of higher income and penalty proceedings.Issue 3: Conviction and SentencingThe trial court convicted one of the accused partners for offenses under Sections 276-C, 277, and 278-B of the Act based on evidence of intentional tax evasion and non-cooperation during assessment proceedings. However, other accused were acquitted due to lack of sufficient evidence to prove their involvement in the alleged offenses. The conviction was based on the deliberate actions of the accused to evade tax and penalty, as highlighted during the assessment and subsequent legal proceedings.Issue 4: Acquittal and AppealThe complainant appealed the acquittal of certain accused to the Court of Sessions, which upheld the lower court's judgment. The Additional Sessions Judge found no illegality in the acquittal and dismissed the appeal. The judgment highlighted the need for independent and cogent evidence to prove allegations of abetment and tax evasion. The revision petition filed against this decision was also dismissed by the High Court, as no apparent illegality or infirmity was found in the lower court's judgment.This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the legal proceedings, evidence presented, and the court's reasoning behind the assessment, conviction, acquittal, and appeal decisions in the case of alleged income tax evasion under the Income Tax Act, 1961.