Delhi District Court
Ito vs M/S S.N. Bhatia & Co. Pvt. Ltd. on 1 May, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. GORAKH NATH PANDEY,
ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (Spl. Acts) CENTRAL
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
ITO vs M/s S.N. Bhatia & Co. Pvt. Ltd.
U/s 276CC of Income Tax Act
JUDGEMENT CC No.22/4/09
(a)Serial no. of the case : 02401R000771990
(b)Date of commission of offence : Assessment year 198182
(c)Name of complainant : Sh. Vijay Kumar
ACIT, Central Circle3, New Delhi
(d)Name, parentage, residence: 1) M/s S.N. Bhatia & Co. Pvt. Ltd.
48A Jor Bagh, New Delhi
2) S.N. Bhatia (discharged)
3) A.K. Bhatia (discharged)
4) S.K. Bhatia (discharged)
all c/o M/s S.N. Bhatia & Co. Pvt. Ltd.
48A Jor Bagh, New Delhi
(e)Offence complained of/ proved : U/s 276CC of Income Tax Act
(f)Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
(g)Final order : Accused no.1 company convicted
(h)Date of such order : 01.05.12
Date of Institution of complaint: 31.03.90
Date of Reservation of Judgment : 01.05.12
Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 01.05.12
Brief statement of the reasons for the decision:
1.The complainant Sh. Vijay Kumar, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax filed the present complaint against aforesaid accused persons pertaining to assessment year 198182 for the offence punishable u/s 276CC of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter called to be as the Act). Succinctly, the allegations made in the complaint are that accused no.1 is a private limited company ITO vs S.N. Bhatia 1-5 incorporated under the Companies Act and accused no.2 to 4 were directors of accused no.1. Accused no.2 to 4 were exercising all powers to control the day to day business of accused no.1 and they were office incharge and responsible for the conduct of day to day business of accused no.1. As contended, since the return of income for the assessment year 198182 which was to be filed by the accused no.1 by 30.06.81, was not available on record, the assessing officer issued a letter to the Managing Director of accused no.1 to furnish a duplicate return along with the proof of filing of aforesaid return. Accused no.1 filed reply to the said letter through its office incharge Mr. K.C. Vohra informing the complainant that director of accused no.1 had gone out of India and would be back on 15.08.84 and request for extension of time was sought for furnishing the information about the return of income. On 26.09.84 complainant again issued another letter to the accused no.1 calling for the aforesaid information. On being not received any response to the said letter from the accused, a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 29.11.84 to the accused. It is alleged that accused no.1 ultimately filed its return of income on 15.07.85 declaring a total income of Rs.41,774/. After probing the whole matter in detail the complainant completed the assessment of accused no.1 for the relevant assessment year on a total income of Rs.21,19,038/ as against the declared income. As the accused no.1 willfully failed to furnish its return of income within the time allowed u/s 139(1) of the Act as also within the time allowed in the notice u/s 148 of the Act, the accused have committed an offence u/s 276CC of the Act. Therefore, this complaint is filed by the ITO vs S.N. Bhatia 2-5 complainant against the accused.
2. After precharge evidence, charge was framed against the accused no.1 to 4 u/s 276CC of the Act, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to substantiate his allegations, complainant examined himself as PW1. In his evidence PW1 reiterated the facts of the complaint and proved the relevant documents i.e. sanction to launch present prosecution Ex. PW1/2, notice u/s 148 Ex.PW1/4, return of income filed on 15.07.85 Ex. PW1/5, assessment order Ex. PW1/6 and order of CIT appeal as Ex. PWA1/7.
4. Accused no.1 was being represented through accused no.2. Mr S.N. Bhatia. Statement of all the accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C read with section 281 Cr.P.C. In his statement accused no.2 admitted he is/was the managing director of accused no.1. Accused no.3 and 4 stated that they are/were directors of accused no.1 but not responsible for filing return of income on behalf of accused no.1. All accused admitted that they had signed the return/balance sheet/profit and loss account and admitted that notices were served on them by the complainant but accused denied that they have willfully failed to furnish return of income for the assessment year 198182. Despite opportunities accused opted not to lead any defence evidence.
5. During the course of trial the accused no.2 to 4 were discharged by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 02.11.11. Now this judgment is directed against the accused no.1 only.
6. I have heard the arguments on behalf of both the parties and gone through the record of the case. I have also considered the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act. The relevant provisions of section 276CC is reproduced below for reference: [276CC. Failure to furnish returns of income. If a person willfully fails to furnish in due [the return of fringe benefits which he is required to furnish under sub section (1) of section 115WDE or by notice given under subsection (2) of the said section or section 115WH or] time the return of income which he is required to furnish under subsection (1) of section 139 or by notice given under [clause
(i) of subsection (1) of section 142] or [section 148 or section 153A], he shall be punishable, i. in a case where the amount of tax, which would have been evaded if the failure had not been discovered, exceeds one hundred thousand rupees, which rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to seven years and with fine; ii. in any other case, with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three months but which may extend to three years and with fine.
7. Present complaint was filed by the complainant u/s 276CC for not filing the return of income for the assessment year 198182 within the stipulated period. In view of section 139(1) of the Act, every person, if his total income during the previous year exceeds the maximum amount which is not chargeable to incometax, is bound to furnish a return of his income in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner before the expiry of four months from the end of the previous year or before the 30th day of June of the assessment year which ever is later. In this case return of income of the accused no.1 was due to be filed by 30.06.1981. It is stated that since the return of income was not filed by the accused, a notice u/s 148 of the Act Ex. PW1/4 was served upon the accused. In response to the said notice Mr. K.C. Vohra, office incharge of the accused no.1 informed that accused had gone out of India and sought ITO vs S.N. Bhatia 4-5 extension of time to furnish the required information. PW1 categorically deposed stated that return of income vide Ex. PW1/5 for the assessment year 198182 duly signed and verified by the accused no.2, was filed on 15.07.85. Though accused no.2 denied the fact regarding late filing of return of income, the late filing of return of income has been proved on record in one way or the other in view of the evidence of PW1 and documents on record. The date of filing of return of income remained inimpeached and uncontroverted in the evidence of PW1. Thus, the same is deemed to be admitted by the accused. Admission is the best evidence to prove the allegations. There is nothing on record to impeach the testimony of PW1 and relevant documents are proved as per law.
8. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and aforesaid discussions, this court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has been successful in proving their case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, it is held that accused no.1 was under obligation to file the return of income for the assessment year 198182 within stipulated period but they failed to furnish the same within prescribed period as required u/s 139(1) of the Act and accordingly accused no.1 is held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable u/s 276CC of the Income Tax Act.
(GORAKH NATH PANDEY) ACMM(SPECIAL ACTS) CENTRAL TIS HAZARI COURTS DELHI Announced in open court on 01.05.12 ITO vs S.N. Bhatia 5-5