Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

13. Having regard to the contentions of learned counsel for petitioner, to me, the answer must obviously be in the negative, as the complainant-ITO has miserably failed in this relevant connection and the present petitions for leave to appeal deserve to be dismissed for the reasons mentioned here-in-below.

14. As is evident from the record that the complainant-ITO claimed that the main assessee has submitted the income tax return for the assessment year 1987-88 claiming a refund of Rs.3395/- based on false TDS certificate through respondent-accused Sudesh Sharma, Advocate. Strange enough, the complainant ITO had not filed any complaint against the main assessee and only arrayed the respondent Advocate as an accused, who was stated to have submitted the income tax return on his behalf. Meaning thereby, the respondent-accused had only submitted the income tax return along with all the pointed documents on behalf of main assessee. In other words, all the TDS certificates, which were purported to have been issued by the Northern Railway, were supplied by the main assessee to his Advocate. It was the main assessee, who had procured the documents from the concerned authorities and claimed the refund. In case, the main assessee had claimed the refund on the basis of forged TDS certificates, then, the Income Tax Authorities were competent and well within their jurisdiction to reject his claim of refund under the relevant provisions of The Income Tax Act. Thereafter, the aggrieved party had a right to file the statutory appeal in this relevant connection. Be that as it may, therefore, in that eventuality, the CRM No.A-959-MA of 2014 along with 44 connected petitions 6 respondent-accused, who was an Advocate, had just submitted the income tax return on behalf of main assessee, cannot possibly be and indeed could not be held liable for criminal prosecution for procuring the documents by main assessee in order to attract the penal provisions of indicated offences, as contrary urged on behalf of complainant-ITO. Similarly, the mere fact that he had prepared the income tax return on behalf of assessee, ipso facto, is not a ground, muchless cogent, to hold respondent-accused guilty for the commission of offences punishable u/ss 177 and 182 IPC in the absence of main assessee.