Delhi District Court
Ito vs M/S Svil Mines Ltd. & Ors. on 31 July, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. PAWAN SINGH RAJAWAT:
ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (Spl. Acts): CENTRAL
TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
ITO vs M/s SVIL Mines Ltd. & Ors.
CC No. 526444/16
JUDGMENT
(a)Date of commission of offence : Date of filing of return 30.9.11
(b)Name of complainant : Sh. Bhawani Shankar Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-I, Income Tax Department, New Delhi.
(d)Name, parentage, residence : 1)M/s SVIL Mines Ltd.
of accused E-3, Phase-II,
Mangolpuri Industrial Area,
Delhi-110 034.
2) Sh. Sateesh Jain
Director
C/o M/S SVIL Mines Ltd.
E-3, Phase-II,
Mangolpuri Industrial Area,
Delhi-110 034 and
R/o Flat No. 1/7439, East
Gorakh Park, Lane-14,
Shahdara, Delhi-32.
(e)Offence complained of/ proved : U/s 276C(2)/277 r/w 278B IT
Act
(f)Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
(g)Final order : Convicted
(h)Date of such order : 31.07.2018
Date of Institution of complaint : 03.09.2012
Date of Reservation of Judgment : 28.07.2018
Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 31.07.2018
ITO vs M/s SVIL Mines Ltd. CC No. 526444/16 1 of 19
Brief statement of the reasons for the decision:-
1. The complainant through Mr. Bhawani Shankar, the then Asstt, Commissioner of Income Tax filed the present complaint against the aforesaid accused persons for the offences u/s 276C(2)/277 read with section 278B of Income Tax Act (hereinafter to be referred as the Act).
2. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that accused no. 1 through accused no. 2 had filed its return of income by way of e-
return for the assessment year 2011-2012 declaring total income of Rs. (-)10,51,06,182/- and had shown to have paid self assessment tax under Section 140A of the IT Act amounting to Rs. 4,91,32,750/- and in his return of income, the details of advance tax and self assessment tax payment of income tax, accused showed BSR Code- 0510308, Type-self assessment tax, challan deposit date- 30.09.2011, challan seq. no. 49132 and amount of Rs. 4,91,32,750/- which were all fake and when the self assessment tax payment of Rs. 4,91,32,750/- was verified from the AST, it was found that no such payment was made. It is further stated that the since the accused was aware that false details in the schedule of payment of tax in the return of income were furnished/filled and were also aware that the same will not be tallied from the AST, they filed letter dated 13.02.2012 in response to the show cause notice dated 13.02.2012 admitting that no self assessment tax was paid for AY 2011-2012 and the same amounting to Rs. 4,91,32,750/- is still outstanding as payable. It is further stated that the accused filed a letter dated 03.02.2012 admitting that the assessee company has not paid any tax as self assessment tax as has been shown in the return of ITO vs M/s SVIL Mines Ltd. CC No. 526444/16 2 of 19 income filed through the website of the department and have further stated that the program through which the return is uploaded shows the tax payable as tax paid by default. It is further stated that the plea of the accused is not acceptable as the system of its own can not do so and a letter from the "SYSTEMS" dated 10.07.2012 of the Income Tax Department was obtained in another case of the same facts wherein it was stated that neither there is nor there was any check in e-filing software for not allowing uploading of returns without payment of Self Assessment Tax. It is further stated that the accused no. 2 was the Director and has signed the return of income, thus, responsible for making the false verification in the return of income filed and not depositing of tax as per the return of income itself. Hence, present complaint.
3. Accused were summoned. Copies of complaint and of documents were supplied.
4. In order to substantiate the allegations against the accused, the prosecution examined the complainant Sh. Bhawani Shankar DCIT as PW1, Sh. B.M. Singh as PW2, Sh. Rajesh Kumar as PW3 and Sh. Ramesh Kumar as PW-4 in pre charge evidence.
5. PW1 Sh. Bhawani Shankar was the complainant who proved on record the complaint as Ex.PW1/1 and his authorization to file the present complaint as Ex.PW1/2, list of witnesses as Ex. PW-1/3, return of income filed by the accused as Ex. PW1-/4, showcause notice dated 13.02.12 Ex. PW-1/5, its reply dated 13.02.2012 as Ex. PW-1/6. He further deposed that another letter dated 03.02.12 was received from the accused admitting that they have actually not paid the self assessment tax copy of which is Ex. PW-1/7 and the ITO vs M/s SVIL Mines Ltd. CC No. 526444/16 3 of 19 same was verified from the system section of the department vide their letter dated 10.07.12 which is Ex. PW-1/8. He further deposed that a showcause notice Ex. PW-1/9 dated 16.05.12 for launching of prosecution was issued to the accused by the CIT and reply dt. 14.06.12 Ex. PW-1/10 was duly received from the accused and not found satisfactory. He further deposed that accused have committed offence punishable U/s 276C(2) of the IT act and by making falsely verification in the return and deliberately giving false information the accused has committed offence punishable U/s 277 of the IT.Act r/w Sec. 278-B of the said Act. The cross examination of the witness will be discussed at a later stage.
6. PW2 is Sh. B.M. Singh Deputy Director (Systems), New Delhi who identified his signatures on Ex. PW-1/8 which he wrote to the CIT, Central-II in the case of M/s Surya Vinayak Industries Ltd. He deposed that if there is any amount of tax payable as per the return income and has been shown as payable, the system accepts the said return as will be filed by the assessee, if the tax is shown as payable, it will accept as payable. He further deposed that the system will not change the nature of tax payable to tax paid and if the facts of the case are the same, the system will work the same as in the case of Surya Vinayak. The cross examination of the witness will be discussed at a later stage.
7. PW3 Sh. Rajesh Kumar deposed that he was posted as ACIT, Central Circle-25 and had jurisdiction on the case of M/s Surya Vinayak Industries Ltd. He further deposed that he had issued letter dated 13.02.2012 Ex. PW-1/5. The cross examination of the witness will be discussed at a later stage.
ITO vs M/s SVIL Mines Ltd. CC No. 526444/16 4 of 19
8. Sh. Ramesh Kumar, DCIT Central Circle-25 was examined as PW-4 in response to application U/s 311 Cr.P.C. He stated that during his said posting, he had jurisdiction to the present case. He further stated that the return of income for AY 2011-12 declaring total loss of Rs. 10,51,06,182/- was digitally signed dt. 30.09.11 by accused no.2 Sateesh Jain in the capacity of Director filed on 11.06.12 and proved its copy of acknowledgment as Ex. PW-4/1. The cross examination of the witness will be discussed at a later stage.
9. After hearing arguments on conclusion of pre charge evidence, a charge for the offence punishable u/s 276C(2) and 277 r/w 278B of the Act was framed against the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. After post charge evidence was closed, matter was fixed for recording statement of accused no. 2 U/s 313 Cr.P.C. recorded on 16.11.15 and of Ld. Counsel for OL on behalf of accused no. 1 was recorded on 07.07.18.
10. Statement of accused no. 1 recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C through its Official Liquidator. In his statement Ld. Counsel on behalf of OL of accused no. 1 submitted that no information in respect of present proceedings have been provided by the ex directors to the Official Liquidator. Accused no. 2 in his statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C. also stated that he was non executive director and was neither incharge nor responsible for day to day affairs of the company. He further stated that he was not shareholder or beneficial owner of any share in the company and he resigned on 14.05.11. He showed his ignorance about filing of the e-return in question.
ITO vs M/s SVIL Mines Ltd. CC No. 526444/16 5 of 19
11. Accused no. 2 examined Sh. Rakesh Kumar as DW-1. DW-1 stated that he was working in Floriana Group of Companies and M/s SVIL Mines is one of the subsidiary company of the said group. He stated that annual return for the assessment year 2011-12 with wrong challan has been filed and later on Sh. Sanjay Jain and Sh. Rajeev Jain alongwith Tax Consultant Sh. Kamal Aggarwal convened a meeting and told him to submit a letter narrating that tax could not be paid as there was a fire in the premises of the company. He further stated that income tax department was intimated about filing of the wrong challan and time was sought to pay the tax amount due to paucity of funds. He relied upon Ex. DW-1/D-1 as the letter which was sent to the complainant department under his signatures. During cross examination by Ld. SPP he admitted that accused no. 2 Sateesh Jain was the Director of accused no. 1 during AY 2011-12. He stated that he was not involved in any manner with respect to submitting the Income Tax Return. He admitted that the acknowledgment of Income Tax Return for AY 2011-12 was digitally signed by Sateesh Jain. He failed to state whether Rajeev Jain and Sanjeev Jain were the only persons involved in every meeting of the company. In his re examination he stated that the return was filed by Sanjeev Verma but claimed since he was not present at that time therefore cannot say as to who has used the DSC for signing the return. He also stated that return in question was filed on the direction of Sanjay Jain and Rajeev Jain and the DSC was used to be kept by Company Secretary. In his further cross examination he admitted that Company Secretary is authorized to use to DSC of the concerned director with his consent. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely being hand in glove with accused no. 2. He also denied suggestion that annual return for the year 2011-12 was ITO vs M/s SVIL Mines Ltd. CC No. 526444/16 6 of 19 filed in routine and voluntarily stated that the same was furnished on specific directions as it was not accompanied by tax payment.
12. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced on behalf of parties and gone through the records. I have also considered the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
13. The relevant provisions of section 276C(2) are reproduced herein below: Section 276C(2). If a person willfully 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 provisions of this Act, be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three months but which may extend three years and shall, in the discretion of the court, also be liable to fine. Explanation. For the purposes of this section, a willful 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 proceeding 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
(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.]
277. False statement in verification, etc. If a person makes a statement in any verification under this Act or under any rule made thereunder, or delivers an account or statement which is false, and which he either knows or believes to be false, or does ITO vs M/s SVIL Mines Ltd. CC No. 526444/16 7 of 19 not believe to be rue, he shall be punishable, in a case where the amount of tax, which would have been evaded if the statement or account had been accepted as true, exceeds one hundred thousand rupees, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to seven years and with fine; in any other case, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three months but which may extend to three years and with fine] 278B. Offences by companies. (1) Where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company, every person who, at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the company as well as the company shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
278E. Presumption as to culpable mental state. (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 which respect to the act charged as an offence in that prosecution.
14. Whether accused no. 2 is the person responsible to and incharge of the conduct of the day to day business of the accused no. 1: Vicarious liability cannot be imputed merely on the ground that accused was director of the company. Law in this regard has been summarized by our own High Court in case titled as Sudeep Jain vs M/s ECE Industries Ltd in Cri. M.C. No. 1822/2013, order dated 06.05.2013. While discussing the vicarious liability of the Director, it was observed that vicarious liability on the part of a person must be pleaded and proved and not inferred. Same view has been taken by the Hon'ble Apex court in "National Small Industries Corp. Ltd. vs. Harmeet Singh Paintal and Anr., 2010 (2) SCALE 372". Relevant para of the judgment is reproduced below:-
ITO vs M/s SVIL Mines Ltd. CC No. 526444/16 8 of 19 "24. ... if the accused is not one of the persons who falls under the category of "persons who are responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company" then merely by stating that "he was in-
charge of the business of the company" or by stating that "he was incharge of day to day management of the company" or by stating that "he was incharge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company", he can not be made vicariously liable under Section 141(1) of the Act. To put it clear that for making a person liable under Section 141(2), the mechanical repetition of the requirements under Section 141(1) will be of no assistance, but there should be necessary averments in the complaint as to how and in what manner the accused was guilty of consent and connivance or negligence and therefore, responsible under Sub-section (2) of Section 141 of the Act".
15. Thus, it is clear that for holding a director responsible for a criminal offence, it has to be established by the prosecution that he/she was the person incharge for the day to day affairs of the firm during the relevant time. It is also clear from the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that a partner/director cannot be made personally liable for the offences committed on behalf of the firm/company and the criminal liability can not be extended to another partner/director merely by virtue of his being Director in the firm/company unless something concrete is proved on record to show that he/she was the person incharge and responsible for the ITO vs M/s SVIL Mines Ltd. CC No. 526444/16 9 of 19 conduct of the business of the firm/company.
16. PW-1 has categorically stated that accused no. 2 has digitally signed and verified the e-return in question. Admittedly accused no. 1 filed its e-return through digital signature of accused no. 2. At no point accused no. 2 denied that the said digital signature does not belong by him. His only defence is that the digital signature is put on the return on the direction of chairman of accused no. 1 Sh. Sanjeev Jain and the said digital signature was under the care and custody of company secretary of accused no.1. Even DW-1 has stated that the Company Secretary was authorized to use the digital signature with the consent of the concerned director. It was claimed that Sh. Sanjeev Verma CA was responsible for accounts of the company but no evidence whatsoever has been brought on record to prove the same.
17. During cross examination he has categorically stated that accused no. 2 was the director of the company and since accused no. 2 has filed e-return therefore, he was made accused in the instant case. However he has admitted that apart from e-return no other document has been filed to show that accused Sateesh Jain is responsible for affairs of accused no.1.
18. As per Ex. PW-1/D-1 it is claimed that accused no. 1 has already informed the department vide letter dated 09.11.11 and 03.2.12 that no tax has been paid and the tax is still payable with the reason thereof mentions that server of the department was not uploading the return of income by showing tax payable as such the other details of payment of tax were also filled up were incorrect.
ITO vs M/s SVIL Mines Ltd. CC No. 526444/16 10 of 19 However in the letter it has not been denied that the return was uploaded on the system with paid remarks but the justification given is without any basis. The return was filed on 30.09.11 but there is no explanation why it took so long to accused to inform the complainant about such alleged error in the system.
19. PW-4 has categorically stated that the return for assessment year in question was digitally signed by Sateesh Jain in the capacity of Director on 30.09.11. He proved the said copy of return as Ex. PW-4/1. During cross examination he stated that the document Ex. PW-4/1 was filed on 12.06.12 and at that time he was not holding charge of the case and his knowledge is based on departmental records only. He denied suggestion that accused Sateesh Jain was not person responsible and incharge of day to day affairs of accused no.1/company.
20. In the present case, apart from bare submission in statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C. accused no. 2 has not led any evidence to show that he was not handling day to day affairs of accused no.1 with respect to filing of the income tax return. On the other hand, there are specific averments in the complaint about the liability of accused no. 2 which has not been denied by positive evidence or even by leading evidence showing preponderance of probability in favour of the accused persons.
21. The plea of accused no. 2 that his digital signature has been misused is to be examined in the light of Information Technology Act 2010 which deals with the process/procedure to be followed for affixing digital signatures.
ITO vs M/s SVIL Mines Ltd. CC No. 526444/16 11 of 19 Section 2(p) defines "digital signature"means authentication of any electronic record by a subscriber by means of an electronic method or procedure in accordance with the provisions of section 3. Section 2(q) defines "Digital Signature Certificate" means a digital signature certificate issued under sub section (4) of section 35.
22. Section 3 provides that authentication of electronics records shall be made by affixing digital signature by subscriber and same shall be effected by the use of asymmetric crypto system and hash function which envelop and transform the initial electronic record into another another electronics record.
23. Section 41 provides the manner in which the Digital Signature Certificate (DSC) is required to be accepted and controlled. It provides that the subscriber shall deemed to have accepted the DSC if he publishes or authorizes the publication of DSC to one or more person in a repository or otherwise demonstrate his approval of DSC. It further mentions that by accepting a DSC the subscriber certifies to all who reasonably rely on the information contained in the DSC that the subscriber holds the private key corresponding to the public key listed DSC and all representations made by the subscriber are true and within the knowledge of the subscriber.
24. Section 42 caste duty upon the subscriber to exercise reasonable care to retain control of the private key corresponding to the public key listed in DSC and take all steps to prevent its disclosure to a person not authorise to affix the DSC. It further bounds the subscriber to involve certifying authority if the DSC has been compromised in any manner and subscriber shall be liable for ITO vs M/s SVIL Mines Ltd. CC No. 526444/16 12 of 19 all acts done with the said DSC.
25. However, the accused has admittedly not taken any of the steps to prevent alleged misuse of his DSC or even informed the certifying agency about such misuse. The plea of accused no. 2 that the DSC was in the custody of Company Secretary is also negated by deposition of DW-1 wherein he stated that the Company Secretary used the DSC with the consent of concerned director.
26. The plea that there were other 11 directors apart from accused no. 2 is rejected as it is the Director who was responsible for day to day affairs is liable for the default and of falsity in return. In the present case it is accused no. 2 whose digital signature were affixed on the said return.
27. Thus in view of above discussion it is held that accused no. 2 is responsible for affairs of accused no. 1 being signatory of the e- return.
28. Whether there was willful attempt to evade the payment of tax on behalf of accused no.1: All the complainant witnesses categorically stated that accused persons have willfully attempted to evade tax by showing the due tax as paid which was not credited to the accounts of the complainant department.
29. PW-1 has categorically stated that he has considered the representation of the accused which are Ex. PW-1/6 and PW-1/10 before filing the complaint. He denied the suggestion that accused Sateesh Jain was not the Principal Officer of accused no. 1 and not responsible for its day to day affairs. Even though accused has ITO vs M/s SVIL Mines Ltd. CC No. 526444/16 13 of 19 brought letter dated 09.11.11 to show their bonafide in informing the department about the system error. However accused have conveniently not disclosed before the Court about the investigation started in March 2011 itself by the Dy. Director (Inv.), Income Tax against its sister concerned M/s Surya Vinayak Industries Ltd. against whom a similar complaint was disposed off vide order dt. 28.04.18. PW-2 has categorically stated in the examination in chief that the system will not change the nature of tax payable to tax paid. He has also stated that if there is any amount of tax payable and has been shown as payable, the system accepts the said return. During cross examination no material supporting the case of accused put to PW-2. The admission on the part of CW-1 that Ex. PW-1/D-1 was not relied upon in the complaint is of no help to the accused in view of the reasoning above with respect to ongoing investigation against sister concern of accused no.1. Hence, the document Ex. PW-1/D1 does not absolve accused person from the penal consequences of filing false statement and not deposit of self declared tax.
30. Whether accused persons made false statement by falsely showing the tax paid in the e-return filed :PW-1 has stated that accused no. 2 has digitally signed the return on 30.9.11 showing the amount of tax as paid and also put the BSR code with date of deposit of challan and sequence number which on verification found to be false. It has not been denied by the accused person that the return was uploaded with the remarks paid, having BSR Code and date of deposit of challan and sequence number. No material showing system error has been brought by accused persons.
ITO vs M/s SVIL Mines Ltd. CC No. 526444/16 14 of 19
31. Ex. PW-1/8 which is the clarification sought from the Director of Income Tax (Systems) wherein it is clarified that neither there is nor there was any check in e-filing software for not loading/ uploading of return without payment of assessment tax. The accused has not lead any evidence to show the alleged system error. It is proved upon the verification that there was falsity in the return of income filed by accused no. 1 through accused no. 2. The argument of Ld. Counsel that the complainant has not attached the sample instances as mentioned in Ex. PW-1/8 is of no consequence as the letter itself is clarifying the procedure in the e-filing software which provides no checks and balances for not allowing uploading of returns without payment of self assessment tax. Moreover in Ex. DW-1/C-2, the accused person have again shown the BSR Code & challan sequence which admittedly prepared by the accused persons only. The falsity is evident in the said record also. The argument of Ld. Counsel for accused that para 4 of the complaint is false is also rejected as PW-1 has categorically stated that when the alleged payment of tax was verified from AST, it was found that no such payment was made. It is not the case of accused that they have made the payment of the tax amount with the return of income.
32. Whether the non compliance of section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act is fatal to the case of complainant: It is argued that since complainant has not filed certificate U/s 65-B of the Evidence Act, therefore, the copy of ITR annexed cannot be taken as proved for fastening liability on the accused persons for false statement.
33. Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act provides a ITO vs M/s SVIL Mines Ltd. CC No. 526444/16 15 of 19 procedure to be followed to prove relevant admissible evidence. It is intended to supplement the law on the point of declaring that any information in electronic record was to be deemed to be document and admissible in any proceeding without further proof of original. The said provision cannot be read in derogation of the exiting laws on admissibility of electronic evidence.
34. In the matter of Anwar P.V. Vs. P.L. Bashir & Ors. :
(2014 )10 SCC 473, the Apex Court observed that electronic evidence by way of primary evidence is covered by Section 62 of the Evidence Act to which procedure of Section 65-B is not admissible.
35. In the matter of Shafhi Mohammad Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh: SLP (Crl.) No. 2302 of 2017 by order dated 30.01.2018 Hon'ble Supreme Court after discussing the existing law on admissibility of electronic evidence has held as under:-
" I. Electronic evidence is admissible per se and section 65A and 65B are classificatory and procedural in nature and cannot be read in the complete code on the subject. The satisfaction of court with regard to authenticity of the electronic record is having privacy."
It further held that "the certificate U/s 65-B(4) is to be furnished only by a person who is in position to produce such certificate being in control of said device."
36. At no point the accused no.2 have claimed that the DSC on the Ex. PW-4/1 does not belong to him. His only defence that same ITO vs M/s SVIL Mines Ltd. CC No. 526444/16 16 of 19 were put on the e-return without his knowledge. Even DW-1 has not claimed that the e-return was not filed for accused no.1 and the only defence is that due to system error the amount of tax has been shown as paid. The procedure U/s 65-B is provided to safeguard immediate possibility of tampering of such electronic record. However, it is settled law that procedure is handmaid of justice and if there is no denial of fair play, the lapse if any, in following the procedure shall not adversely affect the case of the complainant. At no point accused persons have claimed that complainant has filed fabricated e-return with the complaint. Hence, I am satisfied that no prejudice has been caused for non filing of certificate U/s 65 B of Evidence Act in the Court.
37. Whether the sanction was proper:- The sanction order is Ex. PW-1/2. It was argued that the sanction was given in a mechanical manner as the showcause notice was also issued by the sanctioning authority and therefore, the sanction was not independent. It was also argued that the sanctioning authority has not discussed the letter Ex. PW-1/D-1 dt. 09.11.11 and no indexing and pagination was done when file was put up before the sanctioning authority.
38. I have perused the sanctioning order as well as the showcause notice Ex. PW-1/5 & its reply Ex. PW-1/6. A showcause notice was issued by ACIT, Central Circle-01 and the reply was signed by one of the Directors. On the other hand, the sanctioning order Ex. PW-1/2 was passed by Commissioner, Income Tax, Central Circle-III. In para 5 the CIT has recorded his satisfaction on the basis of documents mentioned from para 2 to 4 in the said order that ITO vs M/s SVIL Mines Ltd. CC No. 526444/16 17 of 19 accused persons have committed the offence. The argument that the sanction order does not mentions the page number/indexing is of no consequence when material details are mentioned in the sanction order itself. The non mentioning of letter dt. 09.11.11 is also of no consequence as in the said letter also it has nowhere been claimed that tax has been paid. The letter dt. 09.11.11 appears to be a cover up exercise in order to bargain time and avoid prosecution.
39. The argument of Ld. Counsel that the printout of Ex. PW-1/4 dt. 30.8.12 shows pages 1 to 66 but complainant has filed only 22 of out of 66 pages coupled with the argument that the sanction order is dt. 29.08.12 and Ex. PW-1/4 is dt. 30.08.12, therefore it was not brought in the knowledge of sanctioning authority is humbly rejected as the date of filing of Ex. PW-1/4 is 30.09.11 and the date of printout as taken from the system cannot be read in the light that it has not been put before the sanctioning authority at all. The sanction order Ex. PW-1/2 specifically mentions the details of the e- return. I have also perused the document Ex. PW-1/4. There is no denial that the document mentions from page no. 1 to 66 and only 22 pages have been filed alongwith the complaint. It appears that only the pages which are relevant for present prosecution have been filed with the complaint as page no. 2 to 4 gives details of the directorship and page no. 5 to 8 pertains to balance sheet and page no. 9 to 12 is the profit & loss account statement. Page no. 19 is the computation of total income and page no. 20 & 21 is with respect to computation of tax liability. Had the remaining pages contained any vital information which may be beneficial to the case of accused would have been filed by accused himself as it is only the return of income which is filed by accused persons only. Hence, the argument ITO vs M/s SVIL Mines Ltd. CC No. 526444/16 18 of 19 that complainant has not filed complete pages of the return of income with malafide intention is rejected.
40. In view of the aforesaid discussions and evidence on record, I am satisfied that the complainant has been able to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused no.1 M/s SVIL Mines Ltd. and accused no. 2 namely Sateesh Jain are held guilty for the offence punishable u/s 276-C(2)/277 r/w Sec. 278-B of Income Tax Act 1961 for the Assessment Year 2011-12.
41. Copy of the judgment be given free of cost. Miscellaneous file be prepared for the purpose of arguments on sentence.
Digitally signed by
PAWAN SNGH PAWAN SNGH RAJAWAT
RAJAWAT Date: 2018.08.01
14:06:35 +0530
(PAWAN SINGH RAJAWAT)
ACMM(Special Acts) CENTRAL
TIS HAZARI COURTS DELHI
Announced in open
court on 31st of July, 2018
ITO vs M/s SVIL Mines Ltd. CC No. 526444/16 19 of 19