Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: section 277 in S/S. Bhagat Motor Co. P. Ltd. vs S.K. Abrol Dcit on 30 September, 2011Matching Fragments
1. This is a petition filed by the petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of a complaint titled S.K. Abrol, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Bhagat Motors Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. for the assessment year 1983-84 and the order dated 20th December, 2000 directing framing of the charges under Section 276 C(1) and Section 277 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant who is the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, in capacity of a public servant and in the discharge of his official duties instituted a complaint against the petitioner for violation of Section 276 C(1) and Section 277 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It was alleged that the petitioner No.1 had filed its return of income tax for the assessment year 1983-84, for which the accounting period ended on 31.03.1983, declaring a total income of Rs.84,480/-. The return of income was in the prescribed form and verification therein was made and signed by the petitioner No.2 in his capacity as Managing Director. The return of income was accompanied by the statement of assessable income, auditor's report, balance sheet, manufacturing and trading account, profit and loss account and other documents for the year ending upto 31 st March, 1983. All these documents were signed by the petitioners.
5. After obtaining the requisite sanction under Section 279 of the Act, a complaint was filed against the present petitioners under Section 276 C(1) and Section 277 of the Act. The petitioners were summoned, as the complaint was filed by the public servant in discharge of his official duties and no pre-summoning evidence was recorded. The charges were framed by the Trial Court after recording pre-charge evidence vide impugned order dated 20th December, 2000. The petitioner feeling aggrieved, against the framing of charge filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the complaint. The matter came up before the High Court for the first time on 30th April, 2001 and it was adjourned to 16th May, 2001. Ultimately after couple of adjournments, on 20th September, 2001 arguments were heard and since the case was fixed for recording of the statement of the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. before the ACMM, this Court was pleased to pass and order that ACMM shall not pass any final order in the complaint, which stay order has continued till date.
6. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that apart from the prosecution of the petitioners for the aforesaid offences under Section 276 C(1) and Section 277 of the Income Tax Act, the respondents had proceeded for adjudication proceedings against the petitioners for the alleged concealment of their income to the tune of Rs.3,47,252/- for the assessment year 1983-84. The petitioners had reflected in the return an income of approximately Rs.84,000/- while the respondent/complainant has prima facie held the assessed income for the said period to the tune of Rs.3,47,252/-. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in the departmental proceedings this plea of the Department that the petitioner had concealed the income of Rs.3,47,252/- was not upheld and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal as it came to the conclusion that the total income which was alleged to have been concealed by the petitioners was only to the tune of Rs.15,424/- and not Rs.3,47,272/-. It is contended by the learned counsel that the respondent itself has issued guidelines for prosecution under the Direct Tax laws on 7th February, 1991 wherein it has been laid down that with regard to prosecution under Section 276 C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the corresponding provisions of the Wealth Tax Act, 1967, the proceedings need not be initiated
(a) where the income sought to be evaded is less than Rs.20,000/-; and
(b) wealth sought to be evaded is less than Rs.50,000/-.
7. It is contended that the said parameter will equally apply to an offence under Section 277 for making a false statement in verification. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in the light of this departmental circular, as the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has come to a finding that the total income in respect of which the assessment is alleged to have been concealed and the penalty imposed is less than the aforesaid limit of `25,000/- fixed by the circular, therefore it was not open to the respondent to have initiated the proceedings against the present petitioners for having committed the and offence under Section 276 C(1) and Section 277 of the Income Tax Act.