TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (6) TMI 219
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m Range during the period from October 2001 to July 2002, committed criminal misconduct by habitually accepting valuable things namely donations totalling Rs. 4,50,005/-, without consideration of Utukal Mani Palli Unnayana (UPUS) trust, Cuttack. The said trust was formed on 05.10.2001. The father of the respondent was its President. The respondent received donations from the assessees and Chartered Accountant in the name of UPUS trust. The trust was formed on 05.10.2001 by executing a trust deed by Smt.Jashawini Patnaik and the other trustees were Dr.Manoj Kumar Bhuyan and Dr.Smt.Soundamini Das. The respondent's father, Anantha Prasad Dash, operated savings bank account No.9721 for the trust with CCCB limited, Cuttack (Cuttack Central Co-operative Bank Limited). By resolution of the Board of Trustees dated 05.10.2001, Anantha Prasad Dash/respondent's father was authorized to open and operate the account in the capacity as President of the trust. The said Anand Prasad Dash operated the bank account till 02.02.2003 and was relieved from the position on 02.02.2003 on his request due to ill-health. UPUS trust received 51 donations amounting to Rs. 8,75,005/- by way of demand dr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the President. PW 32, specifically stated that the demand draft in favour of the trust was personally handed over to the respondent. It is proved by the prosecution that the respondent's father, Anand Prasad Dash, was the President of the Trust and he was authorized to operate the bank accounts of the trust, the account opening form is as Ex.P81 and the certified copy of the resolution of the trust is marked as Ex.P82. The withdrawal slips are signed by the father of the respondent. 6. The majority of the donors namely the Assessees and Chartered Accounts have not supported the case of the prosecution, the trial Court failed to look into the fact that documentary evidence proved that the Assessees from Salem gave demand draft to trust at Cuttack. But for the respondent, they would not have made any donation to a trust at Cuttack. The Assesses were having official dealing with the Income Tax Department, the respondent the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Salem, intermediate officer between Assessing Officer and the Commissioner in processing the files and claims of the Assesses. Further, the bank officials of CCCB Limited, Cuttack, had clearly spoken about the donations ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....use and aim of the trust and no individual had benefited out of the trust funds. It is also admitted that the house of the respondent was searched and no incriminating materials were seized and no case of disproportionate assets was initiated. Further, it is admitted that the respondent is only an intermediate officer. The files had been initiated and put by the Assessing Officer, namely, the Income Tax Officer, who have interface with the Assessees and Auditors. No Income Officer has stated anything about the respondent exerting any pressure on them to collect donations. Thereafter, the files were put up along with the documents to the respondent, who on perusal of the files and documents gives his recommendation and forwards the files to the Commissioner. The Commissioner is the authority to give exemption to the assessees under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act. Likewise, in the case of refund of amount, the Assessment Officers are the authorities to order refund. Only in cases where the amounts are of higher value for approval, it is put up to the respondent for approval. 10. He further submitted that the respondent, who was working in a sensitive position, had ordered surveil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the habit of asking donations. Further, PW32 admitted that his Income Tax matters were dealt by one Thirunavukarasu, Auditor. Further submitted that his Pioneer Match Industries was under surveillance and raid was conducted by the officials of the Income Tax Department and he had reasons to grind against the officials. Further Hemalatha Memorial Trust, was registered with the Income Tax Office, Dharmapuri which was not under the control of the respondent. The evidence of this witness does not inspire confidence. 13. PW41 partner of SSP Lorry Transport stated that at the request of his Auditor/PW42, Sekar, he gave donations and admitted that he does not know the respondent's period of service and his tenure in Salem Office. Further, he has clearly stated that he neither met the respondent nor spoken to him even over phone. PW52, the Managing Director of A.P Export Private Limited stated about the surveillance conducted against his business establishments and it was found that he evaded payment of Income Tax. He admitted evasion and agreed to pay Rs. 1.30 crore towards Income Tax. He also admitted two or three persons from Orissa had come to his Office, requested for donation....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2. State of Maharashtra Versus Wasudeo Ramchandra Kaikalwar reported in (1981) 3 SCC 199. 3. State of Tamil Nadu Versus S.Krishnamurthy reported in (2002) 9 SCC 530. 4. A.Shankar Versus State of Karnataka reported in (2011) 6 SCC 279." 18. This Court considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. 19. The respondent, is not connected with UPUS trust. Only for the reason that the Managing trustees was residing in village, the respondent's father who is Auditor of the CCCB Limited (Bank) was authorized to operate the trust account to facilitate the transaction. The amounts which have been properly accounted for the functioning of the trust is not in dispute. The house of the respondent was searched and no incriminating materials found. Further no case under disproportionate assets have been initiated against the respondent. From Exs.P84 & P207, it is seen that the respondent's father is not a trustee. In Ex.P82, the reason for why the father of the respondent was authorized to operate the bank account of the trust is recorded. The Investigating officer failed to show that there was any demand made by the respondent for donation to the....