AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 119
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icted vide judgement of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.06.2015 passed by the learned Special Judge (Economic Offences), Dhanbad in C.O. Case No. 23/04 convicting the petitioner under Section 277 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 months along with fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for 2 months. 5. The grounds raised by the petitioner in the criminal revision petition are as under: "(i) For that, the Judgement passed by the learned trial court as well as that of the learned appellate court below is illegal, perverse and perfunctory, as such liable to be set aside. (ii) For that the judgement passed by learned trial court as well as learned appellate court below is illegal on its face itself. (iii) For that the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court below has failed to exercise jurisdiction judiciously and as such, the judgement suffers from illegality. (iv) For that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish charge against the petitioner. (v) For that the Complainant PW-2 himself has not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unt of interest paid on housing loan amounting to Rs. 28,420/-. The claim of refund was made as excess deduction of Tax at source. It is the further case of the prosecution that on verification and enquiry from the concerned Office of Sr. Accounts Officer, Baramuri OCP, ECL, Mugma Area, Chirkunda as well as the Bank, it was found that neither the TDS Certificate as submitted by the petitioner alongwith the said return of income for the Assessment Year 2003-04 was issued from the aforesaid Sr. Accounts Officer, Baramuri OCP, ECL, Mugma Area, Chirkunda, nor any housing loan was granted to the petitioner by the Bank Of India, Chirkunda and the claim was based on fake and false documents and thus, no refund was granted. The petitioner tried to shift the burden on one Satyaban Roy, an Office Assistant of Baramuri OCP, ECL, Mugma Area, Chirkunda. It was the further case of the Complainant that the petitioner was quite aware of his income, earnings and investments and knowingly, willingly, intentionally, deliberately and with an evil motive furnished inaccurate particulars of his income and housing loan in the return for the assessment year 2003-04 under his signature on verificatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tioner had no housing loan account as Exhibit-8, Reply of Baramuri OCP as Exhibit-10, certified copy of Form No. 16 as Exhibit-10/1, Letter No.354 of the Complainant to Commissioner of Income tax as Exhibit-11, Complaint Petition as Exhibit-12, I.T. Return for assessment year 2003-04 as Exhibit-13, Computation of Income as Exhibit-13/1, Form No. 16 TDS as Exhibit-13/2, letter by ECL regarding deduction of tax, Show cause notice to the petitioner as Exhibit-15, the petitioner's letter (exhibit-15/1), Photocopy of PAN as Mark-X, Photocopy of statement showing housing loan as Mark-X/1, Photocopy of Passbook of Bank of India as Mark-X/4 and some other documents to prove its case. 11. After closure of prosecution evidence, the statements of petitioner were recorded under Section 313 of CrPC on 12.05.2015 wherein he denied the incriminating evidences put to him and claimed to be innocent. The petitioner did not examine any witness, but he filed certified copy of C.O. Case No.26/2004 which has been marked as Exhibit-A and certified copy of C.O. Case No.27/2004 which has been marked as Exhibit-B in his defence. 12. The learned trial court considered the entire materials on record....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e part of the Income Tax Department to allege that the accused has intentionally filed a wrong return vide Ext-13. It is apparent from Ext-10 and 10/1 which is the verification report regarding the TDS certificate that the claim for refund based on excess deduction of tax at source was wrong and thus the claim for refund were wrong. The court while examining the accused has put a specific question regarding his PAN NO ACVPG4382Q which he has admitted being his PAN. The accused person has nowhere specifically denied his signature over the Return of Income Tax and the documents attached with return except his stand taken during the trial, however it has been submitted during course of argument that under good faith, he has put his signature over unfilled form of Return. If plea taken by the accused person is examined in the light of evidence available on record, it becomes crystal clear that the accused person having knowledge of the fact that the said document can be misused put his signature and thus agreed to bear the risk, because the law does not permit such type of lame excuses and thus same cannot be considered. Therefore, under the circumstances the court is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and on the basis of Exhibit-13/1 & 13/2, claimed refund of Rs. 35,875/-. Exhibit-14 series proves that bank as well as ECL have communicated that the claim advanced by accused was fake as neither any Housing Loan was sanctioned by the bank to him, nor any amount of tax was due to him. Thereafter, show cause notice (Exhibit-15) was issued to accused/appellant and same was replied by him (Exhibit-15/1) in which, he admitted that he was an illiterate and uneducated person and his signed documents were filed by an employee Sri Satyawan Rai meaning thereby the signature on verification on the Income Tax Return has not been denied by the accused/appellant. This evidence corroborated the case of prosecution and it did not disturb the core of prosecution case. Therefore, I do not find any substance on the argument advanced by the learned counsel for accused/appellant. 21. The oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of complainant clearly proved that the accused furnished his return supported with fake and fabricated paper and the appellant/ accused had knowingly verified on his return based on a false claim and he did not adduce any evidence to absolve him from the liabil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Mugma Area, Chirkunda. Being dissatisfied with the letter sent by the petitioner, sanction for prosecution of the petitioner was obtained from the Commissioner of Income Tax, Dhanbad vide Exhibit-1 and thereafter, the prosecution was launched under section 277 of Income Tax Act, 1961 against the petitioner. 17. This Court finds that vide Exhibit 15/1 i.e. letter of the petitioner, the petitioner had taken a specific stand that one Satyaban Roy also an employee of Mugma Open Cast Area who deals with affairs of accounts had taken his signatures and signatures of his wife namely, Sulochana Devi on several income tax forms and also on blank papers and he claimed himself to be illiterate and uneducated, although he had duly signed in English on the said document. The show cause notice (Exhibit-15) and letter (Exhibit-15/1) filed by the petitioner have been marked exhibits without any objection from the side of the petitioner. 18. This Court further finds that Exhibit-13 is the Saral Form (Income Tax Return for the Assessment Year 2003-04) filed by the petitioner which has also been marked exhibit without any objection from the side of the petitioner and it carries the signature of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....able mental state', but it shall be a defence for the accused to prove the fact that the accused had no such 'culpable mental state' with respect to the act charged as an offence in that prosecution. The explanation provides that "culpable mental state" includes intention, motive or knowledge of a fact or belief in, or reason to believe, a fact. Sub-section (2) provides the way and the extent to which the fact is to be proved by the accused for the purposes of rebuttal of the presumption under Section 278E. It provides that a fact for the purposes of Section 278E is said to be proved only when the court believes it to exist beyond reasonable doubt and not when its existence is merely established by 'preponderance of probability'. Meaning thereby, if the accused has to prove a fact to dislodge the presumption under Section 278E of the Income Tax Act, the accused has to prove the fact in such a manner that the court believes it to exist beyond reasonable doubt and such a presumption of culpable mental state cannot be dislodged by mere 'preponderance of probability'. 23. This Court finds that in the present case, the foundational facts to convict the petitioner have been duly prove....