2025 (6) TMI 1225 - HC - Income Tax

High Court upholds tax evasion conviction under Section 276C(2) for willfully failing to file returns despite substantial profits

Harish Chadha Versus State

Harish Chadha Versus State - 2025:DHC:4893 The core legal questions considered in this judgment revolve around the wilfulness of the petitioner's failure to pay income tax for the Assessment Year 1995-96, specifically under Section 276C(2) of the Income Tax Act. The principal issues include whether the petitioner's default in payment was wilful or due to financial constraints, the nature and effect of advances made by the petitioner to his co-brother and related entities, the evidentiary burden of proving wilfulness in tax evasion, and the applicability of statutory provisions governing recovery and prosecution for tax defaults.Regarding the wilfulness of tax evasion, the relevant legal framework is Section 276C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which penalizes a 'wilful attempt' to evade payment of tax, penalty, or interest. The Court emphasized that conviction under this section requires proof that the default was not accidental or due to inability but deliberate and intentional. Precedents cited include Sangeeta Exports Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, Prem Dass v. ITO, and Jarnail Singh v. ITO, which affirm that the prosecution must establish wilfulness beyond reasonable doubt.The Court examined the petitioner's defense that his failure to pay was not wilful but due to financial constraints arising from substantial advances made to his co-brother, who allegedly held the petitioner's funds and failed to return them. The petitioner contended that these advances were reflected in his audited financial statements and that he had sought recovery through statutory notices under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act. He argued that the non-payment was a result of his inability to access funds, not an intentional evasion.However, the Court's interpretation of the evidence contradicted the petitioner's claims. The petitioner's own audited reports failed to list his co-brother or his associated firms as debtors, undermining the assertion that the advances were recoverable debts. The Court noted contradictory statements by the petitioner regarding the nature of transactions with his co-brother-alternatively characterizing them as loans or alleging fraud-without producing concrete evidence or initiating civil proceedings to recover sums claimed to be due. The absence of any civil suit or insolvency proceedings to establish financial incapacity was highlighted as significant.The Court also scrutinized the responses to notices issued under Section 226(3) to the co-brother and his firms. These entities denied owing any money to the petitioner, with some asserting that the petitioner owed them sums instead. The petitioner's failure to summon records or call witnesses from these entities was held against him, with the Court applying adverse inference principles under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Court reasoned that the onus was on the petitioner to prove that amounts were due and recoverable from his co-brother, especially since the Income Tax Department was not obligated to pursue third parties on his behalf.In applying the law to the facts, the Court found that the petitioner's failure to pay assessed taxes was not due to genuine financial hardship but was a wilful default. The petitioner's own financial documents showed substantial profits during the relevant period, including income from licensing and fixed deposits. The Court rejected the petitioner's reliance on an earlier balance sheet showing a large cash reserve, noting that the relevant financial year was 1995-96, for which the balance sheet reflected a much smaller cash figure. Furthermore, the petitioner's cessation of business operations in the subsequent year did not excuse the prior year's default.Competing arguments concerning the petitioner's inability to pay and the alleged transfer of funds to his co-brother were thoroughly considered. The Court found the petitioner's explanations inconsistent and unsupported by documentary or testimonial evidence. The Court also dismissed the petitioner's contention that the Income Tax Department or the Court should have summoned records from third parties, emphasizing that the petitioner bore the primary responsibility to establish his defense.The Court concluded that the petitioner's conduct constituted a wilful attempt to evade payment of income tax for the Assessment Year 1995-96, thereby justifying conviction under Section 276C(2) of the Income Tax Act. The judgment upheld the findings of the lower courts, affirming the petitioner's conviction and sentence.Significant holdings include the Court's articulation that mere inability to pay tax does not absolve a taxpayer from liability unless supported by credible evidence and that wilfulness must be established by clear proof of deliberate default. The Court emphasized that disputed business transactions without concrete evidence do not qualify as 'money held' by third parties under Section 226 of the Income Tax Act for recovery purposes. The Court also underscored the principle that the burden to prove defense lies on the accused, who must adduce evidence or cross-examine prosecution witnesses effectively.In the words of the Court: 'The Investment made by the Petitioner with SCK, cannot be termed as a debt recoverable by the Petitioner. This is fortified by the fact that the name of SCK and his Firms/Companies, does not feature in the list of Debtors as on 31.03.1996. The claim of the Petitioner that this amount was due to him from Mr. SCK, is clearly not tenable.' Further, 'Merely claiming financial inability, without providing any further explanation or evidence, holds no weight and is clearly untenable.'Ultimately, the Court held that the petitioner's failure to pay tax was wilful, and the conviction under Section 276C(2) of the Income Tax Act was rightly upheld. The petition for revision was dismissed, affirming the legal principle that wilful tax evasion, proven beyond reasonable doubt, warrants penal consequences irrespective of claimed financial difficulties unsupported by evidence.