Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7. In the instant case, the provisions of Section 139 of the IT Act enjoins an assessee to file a return of Income, which would mandate disclosure of all income so that the same is taxable. This taxability of the income is in turn dependent upon a correct profit CRIMINAL APPEAL 795 of 2018.odt and loss account with the proper entries being shown therein, which would then be the measure of the existence of a legal transaction, which is subject to tax. The provisions of the Income Tax Act, are to ensure, the financial stability of the economic condition of the country, by imposing tax, which then can be utilized for the purpose of public welfare. Thus, the liability to pay tax, is not only a statutory liability, but a societal one also, considering that one lives in a society and utilizes all the benefits, arising therefrom. Thus, the liability to pay tax, is cast upon each and every citizen of the country and non- payment of the same, has not only been made an offence, punishable with penalty. Thus, the Income Tax Act is very much part and parcel of the legal framework by which the citizens of the county are governed and are enjoined to obey and comply with. 7.1. The provisions of Sections 138 to 147 of the NI Act, have been enacted, with the purpose of ensuring that there is a speedy remedy, for financial issues such as dishonour of cheque which in turn also affect the economy. Can it be said, that the provisions of Sections 138 to 147 of the NI Act can and/or be permitted to function and operate, de hors the provisions of the CRIMINAL APPEAL 795 of 2018.odt Income Tax Act and the obligations it imposes upon the citizens of the country. There is already a parallel economy flourishing in the country, which is wholly illegal, under which a number of citizens though they are liable to pay tax, either do not file any returns altogether or file returns, by not disclosing the correct position. Can it be said, that such transactions, which have not been indicated in the Income Tax Returns and therefore kept out of the tax purview can be legal in the true sense of the word, so that the recourse to law can then be resorted to, by such a person/s, to recover money, which has not been disclosed to be his income.

CRIMINAL APPEAL 795 of 2018.odt 8.1. Then the provision of Sections 269 SS of the Income Tax Act prohibits the acceptance or taking of loans/deposits exceeding an amount of Rs.20,000/- by cash. The provisions of Section 271 D of the IT Act makes an action in contravention to the provisions of Section 269 SS liable for penalty equivalent to the amount of loan or deposit taken or accepted by cash. Though the provisions of Section 273 B of the IT Act mandates, that in case the assessee or the recipient proves that there was a reasonable cause for acceptance of the amount in cash in excess of the sum prohibited by Section 269 SS of the IT Act the penalty may not be imposed, the fact remains that the acceptance of an amount in cash in excess of Rs.20,000/- would carry penalty as contemplated by Section 271 D of the IT Act and therefore would be an act, which is not permissible in law. Though Section 269 SS of the IT Act imposes a prohibition upon the recipient, the prohibition in fact touches the transaction itself. In Assistant Director of Inspection Investigation Vs. A.B. Shanthi (2002) 6 SCC 259, the Hon'ble Apex Court while considering the legality of Section 269 SS of the IT Act has held that the object of introducing Section 269 SS was to ensure that the taxpayer should not be allowed to give false explanation for his unaccounted money or if he CRIMINAL APPEAL 795 of 2018.odt has given some false entries in his accounts, he should not escape by giving false explanation for the same and the main object of the provision was to curb this menace. The constitutional validity of the said provision was thus upheld. Thus, the very purpose, of introducing Section 269 SS of the IT Act was to curb the parallel economy which was rampant on account of cash transactions which were unaccounted for. Thus, what has been prohibited by Section 269 SS of the IT Act and violation of the same and has been made liable for a penalty, could it be said that an action done contrary thereto, would be legal, within the expression "legally enforceable debt or other liability", as occurring in the explanation to Section 138 of the NI Act. Holding that infraction of provisions of the Income Tax Act would be a matter between revenue and the defaulter and the advantage cannot be taken by the borrower [as held in Bipin Madhurdas Thakkar and Krishna Morajkar (supra)], in my considered opinion, would tend to defeat the very purpose of the Income Tax Act and would bolster the parallel economy of transactions in cash.