TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (12) TMI 995
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o the filing of this criminal revision case, are as under: 2.1 The Income Tax Department launched a prosecution in E.O.C.C.No.82 of 2005 before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.I), Egmore, Chennai, against Sayarmull Surana, the petitioner herein/accused, for the offence under Section 276C(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the IT Act"). 2.2 It is the case of the Income Tax Department that for the assessment year 1998-1999, the accused filed income tax returns on 16.06.1998, wherein, he had shown his total income at Rs. 48,150/-; the Income Tax Department conducted investigation and found that his total income was Rs. 29,05,126/- and determined the tax payable, including interest, at Rs. 16,02,601; the accused ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re of the prosecution evidence, the accused prayed for discharging him from the prosecution, which plea was negatived, challenging which, the accused has filed the present criminal revision case. 4 Before adverting to the rival submissions on facts, it may be apposite to allude to Section 276C(2) of the IT Act which reads as under: "Wilful attempt to evade tax, etc.: 276C(2) If a person wilfully attempts in any manner whatsoever to evade the payment of any tax, penalty or interest under this Act, he shall, without prejudice to any penalty that may be imposable on him under any other provision of this Act, be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three months but which may extend t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Tax Officer, the accused filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and by order dated 15.09.2003, the order passed by the Income Tax Officer was modified; thereafter, the accused approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which, by order dated 29.06.2007, set aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) holding that the order was passed without giving an opportunity to the accused to present his case and remanded the matter back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals); after the matter was remanded, the accused placed sufficient materials before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to repudiate the assessment made by the Income Tax Officer and succeeded substantially, inasmuch as the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n and the accused has cross-examined the witnesses and through P.W.1, he has marked the order dated 29.06.2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal as Ex.P.30. Likewise, through P.W.1, he has marked the order dated 15.05.2008 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as Ex.P.31. 7 At this juncture, it may be profitable to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Bhupen Champak Lal Dalal and another [(2001) 3 SCC 459], wherein, the Supreme Court, relying upon Jayappan (supra), has held as under: "3. The prosecution in criminal law and proceedings arising under the Act are, undoubtedly, independent proceedings and, therefore, there is no impediment in law for the criminal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ine firm and the assessee could not be prosecuted for filing false returns and, therefore, quashed the prosecution. In P. Jayappan v. S.K. Perumal, First ITO [1984 Supp SCC 437 : 1985 SCC (Tax) 7] this Court observed that the pendency of the reassessment proceedings under the Act cannot act as a bar to the institution of the criminal proceedings and postponement or adjournment of a proceedings for unduly long period on the ground that another proceedings having a bearing on the decision was not proper." 8 In Gujarat Travancore Agency vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kerala, Ernakulam [(1989) 3 SCC 52], the Supreme Court has considered Section 276C of the IT Act and has held as under: "4. . . . . . There can be no dispute that hav....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the tax at Rs. 2,82,650/-. 11 It may be necessary to state here that the authorities created under the Income Tax Act are fact-finding bodies and the accused has been knocking the doors of these bodies challenging the determination of the income by the Income Tax Officer. There was no supine indifference on the part of the accused in not paying the demanded tax, but, on the contrary, he had agitated before various fora and at the end of the day, the fact-finding body itself has come to the conclusion that the income of the accused for the relevant period was only Rs. 2,82,650/- and the tax payable by him thereon was only Rs. 1,10,402/-. 12 Thus, the very edifice on which the prosecution was launched against the accused, has crumbled ....