Bangalore District Court
Income Tax Officer vs M/S. Mast Innovative Products Pvt. Ltd on 5 February, 2024
KABC090000142018
Presented on : 16-02-2018
Registered on : 16-02-2018
Decided on : 05-02-2024
Duration : 5 years, 11 months, 17 days
BEFORE THE SPECIAL COURT FOR ECONOMIC
OFFENCES: AT BENGALURU
Dated this the 5th day of February 2024
:Present:
Sri. VISHWANATH C GOWDAR., B.A.L., LL.M .,
Presiding Officer,
Special Court for Economic Offences,
Bengaluru
C.C. No.09/2018
Complainant: The Income Tax Department
By its Income Tax Officer,
Ward-4(1)(3), Room No.220,
2nd Floor, 80 Feet Road,
6th Block, Koramangala,
Bengaluru - 560 095.
(Reptd. By Spl. Pubic Prosecutor)
Vs.
Accused : 1. M/s. Mast Innovative Products Pvt. Ltd.,
No.113, 17th A Cross,
8th Main, Malleshwaram,
Bengaluru - 560 055.
Represented by its Managing Director
Sri. Mahendra Kumar
2 C.C.No.09/2018
2. Sri. Mahendra Kumar,
Managing Director,
M/s. Mast Innovative Products Pvt. Ltd.,
No.113, 17th A Cross,
8th Main, Malleshwaram,
Bengaluru - 560 055.
(Reptd. By Sri. ACM., Advocate)
: JU DG M E N T :
The instant case emanates from the complaint made by
the complainant against the accused for having committed
the offence punishable U/s.276C(2) r/w 278B of the Income
Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as 'IT Act').
2. The complainant's case in nutshell is as under:
The accused No.1 is the Private Limited Company,
engaged in the business of trading in environmental graphics
and signages as well as application of frosted films, sun
control films for facelifting the corporate offices. The accused
No.2 is claimed to be the Managing Director of the accused
No.1 company and accused No.2 is representing the accused
No.1 company for all the purposes. The accused No.1 being
the company is assessed to an income tax under PAN
No.AAECM7969H. It is the complainant's allegations that,
the accused No.1 company duly represented by the accused
No.2, filed its ITR pertaining to the assessment year 2012-13
on 30.01.2013 declaring the total income of Rs.64,04,230/-
by disclosing the total tax liability of Rs.20,95,652/- including
the interest for the relevant period in the said returns. The
said ITR reflected advance tax paid by the accused No.1 for
3 C.C.No.09/2018
the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- and TDS for the tune of
Rs.10,74,646/-. It is the specific case of the complainant that,
in the said ITR, the self assessment tax was left blank. The
accused No.1 company did not pay the self assessment tax as
contemplated U/s.140A of the IT Act for the tune of
Rs.7,21,006/-. The said ITR was processed on 11.02.2014
U/s.143(1) of the IT Act and demand of Rs.7,00,560/- was
raised. The accused inspite of demand being raised by the
complainant Department, did not pay the said arrears of tax.
It is the case of the complainant that, the accused No.1 being
assessee having filed the ITR and having admitted/declared
the tax, ought to have paid the self assessment tax on or
before the filing of the ITR.
3. It has been categorically alleged that, the accused has
deliberately and willfully with an intention to evade the
payment of taxes, has not paid the self assessment tax which
was admitted/declared in the ITR. It is the case of the
complainant that, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax,
Bengaluru-4 issued show cause notice dated 31.10.2017
calling upon the accused as to why the prosecution should
not be launched for having committed the offence punishable
U/s.276C(2) of the IT Act. The accused No.2 has replied to
the said show cause notice by stating as to on account of
financial difficulties, the accused No.1 was not in a position to
pay the admitted/declared taxes and undertook to pay the
arrears of the taxes in installments on or before February
2016. It has been categorically claimed by the complainant
as to the said plea of the accused as to the accused No.1
4 C.C.No.09/2018
company was under the financial crisis in the assessment
year 2012-13 is contrary to the ITR submitted by the accused
No.1, wherein the bank balance is shown as Rs.3,51,798/-
and sundry debtors was shown to an extent of
Rs.7,81,69,130/- as on 31.03.2012. It is the further case of
the complainant that, the Principal Commissioner of Income
Tax having not been satisfied with the reply of the accused,
proceeded to pass the order of sanction authorizing the
complainant to prosecute the accused for having committed
the offence punishable U/s.276C(2) of the IT Act.
4. It is the specific case of the complainant as to the
accused No.2 being the Managing Director of accused No.1
company, being responsible for filing and verifying the returns
of the accused No.1 company, with whose connivance and
knowledge the offence has been committed is liable to be
prosecuted for the aforesaid offence. Hence, this complaint.
5. This court on having received the complaint, the
sworn statement of the complainant was dispensed as the
said complainant was a public servant in view of the Section
200(a) of the Cr.P.C. Thereafter, this court took cognizance of
an offences punishable U/s.276C(2) r/w Section 278B of the
IT Act.
6. In pursuance of the summons issued to the accused,
on his appearance, he was enlarged on bail. During the
course of the trial, this court issued summons to Mr.
Srichand J.D., vide order dated 19.04.2018. Thereafter, the
5 C.C.No.09/2018
charge was framed, in so far as accused Nos.1 & 2 having
committed offence punishable U/s.276C(2) r/w 278B of the IT
Act, after hearing either parties on HBC, the accused Nos.1 &
2 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
7. The complainant in order to substantiate the claim
put forth in the complaint, got examined himself as PW-1 and
got marked five documents as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-5 and closed its
side of evidence.
8. The accused Nos.1 & 2 denied the incriminating
materials appearing against them in the testimony of the
CW-1/PW-1 while recording the statement U/s.313 of Cr.P.C.
The accused No.2 got examined himself as DW-1 and got
marked 18 documents collectively as Ex.D-1 and Certificate
U/s.65B of the Indian Evidence Act as Ex.D-1(a) and got
closed his side of evidence.
9. Heard the arguments canvassed by the counsels for
complainant and accused.
10. On considering the complaint, evidence on record
and arguments addressed by either parties, the following
points would arise for the determination of this court viz.:
1. Whether the complainant proves beyond all
reasonable doubts that, accused No.1 company
willfully and deliberately with an intention to
evade payment of taxes, failed to pay the
legitimate taxes as per ITR for the assessment
year 2012-13 by defaulting in payment of self
assessment taxes for the tune of Rs.7,21,006/-
and thereby accused No.2 being the Managing
6 C.C.No.09/2018
Director of accused No.1 company for the
relevant period has committed the offence
punishable U/s.276C(2) r/w 278B of IT Act,
1961?
2. What order?
11. The findings of this court on the above said points
are as under:
Point No.1: In the Affirmative
Point No.2: As per final order
for the following:
REASONS
12. Point No.1 : The complainant in order to establish
the guilt of the accused, got himself examined as PW-1 and
got marked five documents as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-5.
13. The complainant in his examination-in-chief has
reiterated and deposed as to the accused No.1 company being
the Private Limited, the accused No.2 being the Managing
Director of accused No.1 company during the relevant period
and accused No.2 being responsible for the business and
conduct of the accused No.1. It has been also accounted
regarding the accused No.1 being assessed to income tax, the
accused No.2 by virtue of being the Managing Director of
accused No.1 company filed ITR on 30.01.2013 for the
assessment year 2012-13 declaring the total income for the
tune of Rs.64,04,230/- and the taxes to be paid along with
interest were shown as Rs.20,95,652/-. It has been also
deposed regarding advance tax being paid for the tune of
Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.10,74,646/- being reflected as TDS. It
7 C.C.No.09/2018
has been specifically accounted as to the accused has not
paid the self assessment tax U/s.140A of the IT Act for the
tune of Rs.7,21,006/-. It is also deposed by reiterating the
complaint averments as to the demand for the tune of
Rs.7,99,560/- being raised against the accused No.1
company. It is further deposed as to the accused No.1
company without valid and cogent reasons, with an deliberate
and willful intention to evade payment of taxes has not paid
the admitted self assessment tax and thereby committed the
offence punishable U/s.276C(2) of the IT Act. PW-1 has also
accounted regarding the show cause notice being issued by
the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax on 31.10.2017
calling upon the accused No.1 to comply with the demand of
the income tax. It is categorically deposed as to the accused
No.1 company having replied and submitted regarding the
financial difficulties, the admitted tax unable to be paid on
account of the said financial difficulties and having
undertaken to pay the arrears of the tax in installments
amounting to Rs.4,00,000/- on or before February 2018.
Thereafter, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax having
passed the sanction order dated 26.12.2017 authorizing the
PW-1 to lodge the complaint in the case on hand.
14. In support of the said oral testimony in all five
documents have been got marked as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-5. Ex.P-1
is the original sanction order, wherein the complainant/PW-1
has been authorized to launch prosecution against the
accused for the offence punishable U/s.276C(2) of the IT Act.
Ex.P-2 is the attested copy of return of income submitted by
8 C.C.No.09/2018
the accused No.1 company, duly verified by the accused No.2
pertaining to the assessment year 2012-13. Ex.P-3 is the
attested copy of the demand raised by the complainant
wherein the demand is shown as Rs.21,74,204/-, inclusive of
interest thereon. Ex.P-4 is the show cause notice dated
31.10.2017 issued by Prl. Commissioner of Income Tax.
Ex.P-5 is the certified copy of the reply dated 06.12.2017
submitted by the accused No.2 in response to the show cause
notice as per Ex.P-4.
15. PW-1 has been subjected to cross-examination by
the counsel for the accused. The suggestions as to the
accused No.2 having paid the taxes for the tune of
Rs.7,00,000/-, so also, the notice as per Ex.P-4 has not been
served on accused No.1 and the false case being lodged
against the accused has been categorically denied by PW-1.
16. The accused No.2 in support of his contentions, got
examined himself as DW-1 and deposed as to he was the
Managing Director of accused No.1 company during the year
2012-13. It is also deposed as to the accused No.1 company
having declared its income for the tune of Rs.64,04,430/- and
the tax liability including interest was for the tune of
Rs.20,95,652/-. The accused No.1 company had paid
Rs.3,00,000/- as advance tax, Rs.10,74,646/- was paid as
TDS and the balance payable is claimed to be Rs.7,21,006/-.
It has been deposed as to on account of accused No.1
company being under financial crisis, the accused No.1
company could not pay the taxes within the relevant period of
9 C.C.No.09/2018
time. It has been categorically deposed as to the accused
No.1 company has paid entire balance taxes in the year 2018
and 2019 and also paid Rs.1,00,000/- in addition to the tax
liability to the complainant Department.
17. In support of the said testimony of the accused, he
has produced 18 online tax payers counterfoils pertaining to
the accused having paid the tax to the complainant
Department. The said 18 counterfoils are collectively marked
as Ex.D-1. The Certificate U/s.65B of the Indian Evidence
Act pertaining to Ex.D-1 is marked as Ex.D-1(a).
18. The aforesaid accused No.2/DW-1 has been
subjected to cross-examination by the Spl. PP representing
the complainant. The said accused No.2 has categorically
admitted as to having filed ITR for the assessment year 2012-
13, it has been specifically admitted by the accused No.2 as
to in the Ex.P-2 i.e., ITR for the assessment year 2012-13, the
profit and gains of the accused No.1 company has been
declared to an extent of Rs.62,66,162/-. It has been
categorically admitted by the accused No.2 as to as per
Ex.P-2, there is no any loss suffered by the accused No.1 in
the assessment year 2012-13. The accused No.2 has pleaded
ignorance regarding having made an application for
compounding before the Principal Commissioner of Income
Tax and the same being rejected for non-payment of the tax
by the accused No.1 company.
10 C.C.No.09/2018
19. The learned Spl. PP representing the complainant
emphatically argued that, the accused No.1 company being
duly represented by the accused No.2 Managing Director has
willfully and deliberately not paid the self assessment tax
U/s.140A of the IT Act and thereby the accused has
committed the offence which is punishable U/s.276C(2) of the
IT Act. It is also vehemently argued that, the aforesaid
provisions very much contemplates any manner of attempt to
evade the tax being punishable.
20. The Spl. PP during the course of his arguments has
highlighted the dictionary meaning of the word "Willful" as
defined in Black's Law Dictionary which reads as under:
"Willful. Proceeding form a conscious motion of
the will; voluntary; knowingly; deliberate.
Intending the result which actually comes to
pass; designed; intentional; purposeful; not
accidental or involuntary"
By emphasizing the aforesaid definition, the learned Spl.
PP has argued as to the complainant has substantiated the
deliberate, voluntary or intentional act of having made an
attempt to evade the payment of Income Tax. It has been
vehemently argued as to the complainant's case is very much
covered under the presumptions as contemplated U/s.278E
of the IT Act, wherein the burden is on the accused to prove
that, there was no any willful and deliberate intention on the
part of the accused to evade the payment of tax. Amongst
these grounds, learned Spl. PP sought to convict the accused.
11 C.C.No.09/2018
21. The learned counsel for the accused argued as to
the accused No.1 company was facing financial crisis, as
such, the accused No.1 company could not pay the taxes for
the assessment year 2012-13 within the stipulated period of
time. The counsel for the accused has also argued as to the
tax pertaining to the complainant Department with respect to
the assessment year 2012-13 has been fully paid by the
accused with penalty and interest and also argued as to there
is no any arrears to the complainant Department. The
counsel for the accused has also highlighted as to there is no
any iota of evidence on record to incriminate the accused and
to bring home as to accused having deliberately and willfully
having attempted to evade the payment of tax by cogent,
documentary and oral evidence. It is argued as to the very
ingredients of Section 276C(2) of the IT Act is not forthcoming
from the complaint and it is also argued as to the
presumption U/s.278E of the IT Act being rebuttable
presumption, the accused No.2 has very much rebutted the
said presumption by getting examined as DW-1 and having
substantiated his claim as per the 18 tax payers counterfoils
collectively marked as Ex.D-1. Amongst these arguments,
the counsel for the accused has highlighted the cross-
examination of PW-1 and sought to acquit the accused.
" Evaluation and Analysis of Evidence"
22. At the outset, it is relevant to note that to constitute
the offence punishable U/s.276C(2) of the IT Act, the
complainant has to prove that, the assessee has willfully and
12 C.C.No.09/2018
deliberately made the attempts to evade the payment of tax.
Section 276C(2) of the IT Act reads as under:
"Section 276C of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
(1)................
(2) If a person willfully attempts in any manner
whatsoever to evade the payment of any tax,
penalty or interest under the Act, he shall,
without prejudice to any penalty that may be
imposable on him under any provision of this Act,
be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a
term which shall not be less than three months
but which may extend to two years and shall, in
the discretion of the court, also be liable to fine"
For the purposes of this section, a wilful attempt
to evade any tax, penalty or interest chargeable or
imposable under this Act or the payment thereof
shall include a case where any person-
i. has in his possession or control any books of
account or other documents (being books of
account or other documents relevant to any
proceedings under this Act) containing a false
entry or statement; or
ii. makes or causes to be made any false entry or
statement in such books of account or other
documents; or
iii. willfully omits or causes to be omitted any
relevant entry or statement in such books of
account or other documents; or
13 C.C.No.09/2018
iv. causes any other circumstance to exist which
will have the effect of enabling such person to
evade any tax, penalty or interest chargeable
or imposable under this Act or the payment
thereof.
23. Ground No.1 urged by complainant: It is claimed by
the complainant as to accused No.1 company left the self
assessment tax column blank in Ex.P-2 and the self
assessment tax as contemplated U/s.140A of the IT Act being
not paid along with the ITR or prior to the submission of the
ITR. This aspect is very much forthcoming from the
examination of the very same Ex.P-2. This aspect is also very
much being substantiated by the complainant as per the
provisions of the Indian Evidence Act and it has not been
rebutted by the accused neither by testimony of the accused
independently nor by way of the cross-examination of the
PW-1/complainant. As such, the complainant has established
ground No.1 to the satisfaction of this court.
24. Ground No.2 urged by complainant: It is the
specific claim of the complainant as to the accused
approached the complainant Department and sought for
installments to pay the arrears of tax and it was undertaken
as per Ex.P-5 to make good the arrears of tax to an extent of
Rs.4,00,000/- on or before January 2018 and balance and
arrears of tax on or before February 2018, as the accused
No.1 company was undergoing severe financial crisis.
25. The testimony of the accused No.2 as to the accused
No.1 company was facing financial crisis and as such the
14 C.C.No.09/2018
accused No.1 company could not make the self assessment
tax within the stipulated period of time, is not at all
supported by any documentary or oral evidence. Per contra,
the complainant has very much brought out as to as per
Ex.P-2 i.e., ITR pertaining to the assessment year 2012-13,
the accused No.1 company was financially stable and the said
accused No.1 company not being under financial loss. In this
regard, the testimony of the DW-1/accused No.2 is extracted
below:
"It is true to suggest that, as per Ex.P-2, I have
declared profit and gains of accused
No.1/company for the assessment year 2012-13
as Rs.62,66,162/-. It is true to suggest that as
per Ex.P-2 there was no any loss in the
assessment year 2012-13"
26. It is also significant to note that, the accused No.2
has categorically admitted that, in the assessment year 2012-
13, the company i.e., accused No.1 had made a profit for the
tune of Rs.62,66,162/-. This being the factual scenario, the
defence urged by the accused as to the accused No.1
company was under financial crisis/financial loss will not
hold water.
27. Defence No.1 of the accused: The accused No.2 has
put forth specific defence as to the arrears of the Income Tax
has been subsequently paid by the accused No.1 company.
The plain reading of Section 276C(2) of the IT Act along with
presumption as contemplated in favour of the complainant as
per Section 278E of the IT Act, the accused No.2 has to
15 C.C.No.09/2018
establish regarding the accused No.2 was not having any
said culpable mental state to evade and to commit an offence
with respect to the Act.
28. In the instant case, the perusal of Ex.D-1 i.e., 18 tax
payers counterfoils, it transpires that, the last Income Tax
pertaining to the assessment year 2012-13 has been remitted
by the accused No.2 on 04.11.2019, belatedly after lapse of
six years. The said payment being made on 04.11.2019 as per
Ex.D-1 has been duly admitted by the accused No.2 in the
cross-examination. The same is extracted below:
"It is true to suggest that as per Ex.D-1, the last
online payment of taxes for the AY 2012-13 is on
04.11.2019"
29. The aforesaid admission of accused No.2 so also, the
examination of Ex.D-1 discloses that, no any payment of
arrears of Income Tax pertaining to the assessment year
2012-13 has been paid by the accused No.2 as undertaken by
the accused No.1 company in Ex.P-5 i.e., on or before
February 2018. This very much inclines this court to draw
an inference as to the accused No.2 being Managing Director
of accused No.1 company having made an attempt while
submitting the ITR for the assessment year 2012-13 to evade
the tax.
30. Defence No.2 of the accused: In the case on hand,
the accused No.2 during the cross-examination of PW-1 has
taken a defence as to accused No.2 was not responsible for
the ITR pertaining to assessment year 2012-13. Per contra,
16 C.C.No.09/2018
the complainant Department has claimed that, the accused
No.1, the company being managed by the accused No.2, who
was the Managing Director at the relevant point of time and
accused No.2 has duly verified and filed the ITR for the
assessment year 2012-13. This claim of accused No.2 having
filed the ITR and duly verified and filed the said ITR is very
much forthcoming from the perusal of the ITR as per Ex.P-2.
This claim of the accused No.2 having filed ITR on behalf of
accused No.1 by virtue of being Managing Director, the said
accused No.2 having duly verified the ITR as per Ex.P-2, has
also with stood the test of cross-examination. Hence, this
defence No.2 put forth by accused No.2 will not hold water.
31. It is pertinent to note that, as per Section 278E of
the IT Act, the accused has to establish his defence beyond all
reasonable doubts. In absence of the cogent documents in
support of the specific defence of the accused No.2 as to the
accused No.1 company undergoing financial loss, the sole
testimony of the DW-1/accused No.2 which is contrary to the
Ex.P-2 i.e., ITR for the assessment year 2012-13 is very much
contrary to the Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act.
32. The claim of the complainant as very much
withstood the test of cross-examination. The complainant's
case is very much covered under the presumption as
contemplated U/s.278E of the IT Act, which reads as under:
Section 278E of Income Tax Act "Presumption as to
culpable mental state"
17 C.C.No.09/2018
278E. (1) In any prosecution for any offence under
this Act which requires a culpable mental state on
the part of the accused, the court shall presume
the existence of such mental state but it shall be a
defence for the accused to prove the fact that he
had no such mental state with respect to the act
charged as an offence in that prosecution.
Explanation.-In this sub-section, "culpable mental
state" includes intention, motive or knowledge of a
fact or belief in, or reason to believe, a fact.
(2) For the purposes of this section, a fact is said to
be proved only when the court believes it to exist
beyond reasonable doubt and not merely when its
existence is established by a preponderance of
probability.
33. The overall examination of the complainant's case,
in the light of the evidence on record, the very ingredients of
Section 276C(2) of the IT Act having been examined in
parlance with presumption as contemplated U/s.278E of the
IT Act very much makes it clear that, the accused having
willfully and deliberately evaded the payment of self
assessment tax U/s.140A of the IT Act, has been
substantiated and established by cogent, oral and
documentary evidence by the complainant. Per contra, the
accused being bound to establish his defence beyond all
reasonable doubts as per the Sub Section 2 of the Section
278E of the IT Act has miserably failed to bring home his
defence to the satisfaction of this court.
18 C.C.No.09/2018
34. In otherwords, the defence of the accused is very
much contrary to his own ITR for the assessment year 2012-
13 as per Ex.P-2, wherein the accused No.1 company has
made profit in the said assessment year 2012-13. It is
needless to point out that, the accused without
substantiating his financial crisis at the relevant point of
time, while ITR for the assessment year 2012-13 being
submitted to the complainant Department having not been
furnished to the satisfaction of this court will certainly
inclines the court to draw an adverse inference against the
accused. The complainant's case is very much covered under
the presumption as contemplated U/s.114 of the Indian
Evidence Act as the complainant is the Department being
involved in its functions of recovering the Income Tax, as
mandated under the Income Tax Act.
35. The view of the court as to the accused having failed
to rebut the presumption as contemplated U/s.278E of the IT
Act is very much supported by the decision of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Sasi Enterprises V/s. Assistant Commissioner
of Income Tax , so also the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High
Court in a case of N.K. Jain V/s. Union of India and others.
So, also in the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat
in a case of Vinod Chandra C Patel V/s. State of Gujarat.
36. Having due regard to the facts and circumstances in
the case on hand, this court is of the considered view that,
the complainant has discharged the burden of demonstrating
the accused No.2 having willfully and deliberately made an
attempt to evade the payment of tax and the accused No.2
19 C.C.No.09/2018
has hopelessly failed to bring home his defence beyond all
reasonable doubts as contemplated U/s.278E(2) of the IT Act.
There is no iota of clinching evidence adduced by the accused
No.2 to gather his defence of accused No.1 company having
undergone financial loss while submitting the ITR as per
Ex.P-2 for the assessment year 2012-13.
37. This court is of the considered view that, the
accused No.2 having been responsible for the day to day
affairs of accused No.1 company as on submission of ITR in
the case on hand, the present Managing Director of accused
No.1 company by name Sri. Srichand J.D., who has occupied
the said position pursuant to the resignation by the accused
No.2 cannot be made liable for the alleged offence. It is
needless to point out that, this court is precluded to proceed
against the present Managing Director of accused No.1
company as he was not at all responsible for the day to day
affairs of accused No.1 company as on filing of ITR as per
Ex.P-2.
38. This court is justified to hold that, the accused No.2
is solely responsible for filing of ITR as per Ex.P-2. As such,
accused No.1 company cannot be made liable for the default
committed by the accused No.2 while being the Managing
Director of the aforesaid accused No.1 company. In the light
of the discussion made supra, this court without any
hesitation proceeds to answer Point No.1 in the Affirmative .
20 C.C.No.09/2018
39. Point No.2: In view of the findings on Point No.1,
this court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
By exercising the power conferred under section 255(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.1 company is acquitted of the offence punishable under section 276C(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
By exercising the power conferred under section 255(2) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.2 is convicted of the offence punishable under section 276C(2) r/w 278B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The accused No.2 is hereby sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- for being guilty U/s.276C(2) r/w 278B of the IT Act. In default of payment of fine by accused No.2, he shall undergo SI for a period of 1 month.
The bail bond of the accused No.1 company stands cancelled.
Office is hereby directed to furnish the free copy of this judgment to the accused No.2 in compliance of section 353(4) of Cr.P.C. forthwith. (Dictated to the Stenographer, same has been typed, corrected and then pronounced by me, in open court on this the 5th day of February 2024) (VISHWANATH C GOWDAR) Presiding Officer, Spl. Court for Economic Offences, Bengaluru.
21 C.C.No.09/2018ANNEXURE:
List of the witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
PW-1 : M. Rudrappa List of the Documents exhibited on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.P-1 : Original Sanction Order Ex.P-2 : Income Tax Returns Ex.P-3 : Screen Shot of Demand U/s.143(1) of IT Act Ex.P-4 : Show Cause Notice Ex.P-5 : C.C. of Reply List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Accused:
DW-1 : Mahendra Kumar List of Documents examined on behalf of the Accused:
Ex.D-1 : 18 Online Tax Payer Counterfoils Ex.D-1(a) : Certificate U/s.65B of Indian Evidence Act Presiding Officer, Spl. Court for Economic Offences, Bengaluru.22 C.C.No.09/2018
05.02.2024 Complt.: IT Accd: RCM For Judgment Accused No.2 present.
Judgment pronounced in the open court (vide separate order) ORDER By exercising the power conferred under section 255(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.1 company is acquitted of the offence punishable under section 276C(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
By exercising the power conferred under section 255(2) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.2 is convicted of the offence punishable under section 276C(2) r/w 278B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The accused No.2 is hereby sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- for being guilty U/s.276C(2) r/w 278B of the IT Act. In default of payment of fine by accused No.2, he shall undergo SI for a period of 1 month.
The bail bond of the accused No.1 company stands cancelled.
23 C.C.No.09/2018Office is hereby directed to furnish the free copy of this judgment to the accused No.2 in compliance of section 353(4) of Cr.P.C. forthwith.
PRESIDING OFFICER.
The learned counsel for the accused No.2 has filed the application under section 389(3) of Cr.P.C. seeking to enlarge the accused No.2 on bail till the expiry of appeal period. It is further submitted that, the accused No.2 is intending to file appeal and as he has been convicted. Hence, has sought for enlarging him on bail.
The learned Spl. PP has orally objected to the said application and submitted that, the accused No.2 is not entitled to the said relief as the accused No.2 is involved in the socio-economic offence and has also submitted as to the chances of accused No.2 absconding from the jurisdiction of this court and failure to comply the order of this court to appear in order to undergo the punishment as per the Judgment, as such sought for dismissal of application.
24 C.C.No.09/2018Considering the fact that, the accused No.2 has been granted bail during the course of trial and in view of the sentence being imposed is not exceeding three years, having due consideration as to the accused No.2 intending to challenge the Judgment by preferring an appeal, it is just and appropriate to grant the bail to the accused No.2 till the expiry of the appeal period only. Accordingly, the bail application is hereby allowed and the accused No.2 has been granted bail till the expiry of appeal period.
The bail application is allowed subject to condition that, the accused No.2 shall execute the personal bond for Rs.10,000/-.
Office is hereby directed to take personal bond of the accused No.2.
The accused No.2 shall be present before the court to undergo the sentence on 05-03-2024.
Call on: 05-03-2024.
P RESIDING OFFICER.