Case Law Details
Sashi Bhusan Prasad Bhuian Vs State of Jharkhand (Jharkhand High Court)
The Jharkhand High Court considered a criminal revision challenging the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Dhanbad, which had affirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Judge (Economic Offences), Dhanbad under Section 277 of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner had been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months along with a fine of ₹5,000. The appellate court had upheld the conviction, leading to the present revision.
The prosecution case was that the petitioner, an employee of Eastern Coalfields Limited and an income tax assessee, filed his income tax return for Assessment Year 2002-03 claiming an annual income of ₹1,81,050 and sought a refund of ₹35,500 on the basis of excess tax deduction and exemption relating to a housing loan. During enquiry, it was found that the TDS certificate relied upon had not been issued by the employer and that no housing loan had been sanctioned in favour of the petitioner. A show cause notice was issued, to which the petitioner replied that he was not an educated person and had requested an office clerk to file his return, asserting that the return had been filed without his instructions and that he had not claimed any refund.
Following the enquiry, a complaint was filed under Section 277 of the Income Tax Act. During trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses and produced documentary evidence, including the sanction order, complaint, original return, computation of income, TDS documents, bank correspondence, employer’s records, show cause notice, reply and Form 49A. The defence did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence and contended that there was no mens rea or intention to commit the offence.
The petitioner argued before the High Court that no offence under Section 277 was made out in view of the reply submitted to the show cause notice. It was also submitted that the complainant admitted that no enquiry had been conducted on the petitioner’s explanation, and therefore the trial and appellate courts had erred in recording the conviction.
The State and the complainant opposed the revision, contending that the petitioner had specifically claimed deductions and a refund on the basis of a housing loan that did not exist. They submitted that illiteracy or lack of education was not a valid explanation for making false statements in an income tax return and that the petitioner had deliberately relied upon forged documents for claiming the refund.
The High Court examined the evidence recorded by the trial court. It noted the testimony of the Income Tax Officer, who stated that the petitioner had filed a return claiming a refund of ₹35,500 supported by a TDS certificate and bank documents which, upon enquiry, were found to be forged. The Bank of India confirmed that no housing loan existed in the petitioner’s name, and the reply to the show cause notice was found to be unsatisfactory. The Court also referred to the evidence of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, who proved the show cause notice, the petitioner’s reply and Form 49A, and stated that the petitioner had relied upon forged documents while filing the return.
The Court reproduced Sections 277 and 278E of the Income Tax Act, including the statutory presumption regarding culpable mental state under Section 278E. It observed that the petitioner had claimed a refund of ₹35,500 on the basis of forged documents and had failed to furnish any valid explanation for the false claim.
Holding that the trial court had passed a reasoned judgment, which had been correctly affirmed by the appellate court, the High Court found no valid ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of guilt. The criminal revision was dismissed. The petitioner’s bail bond was cancelled, and he was directed to surrender before the trial court within two months to undergo the remaining sentence, failing which coercive steps were directed to be taken for securing his custody.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. appearing for the State as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.
2. The instant criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated 26.11.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No. 281 of 2013, whereby the appeal preferred by the present petitioner has been dismissed and the judgment of conviction and sentence of the petitioner dated 16.08.2013 passed by learned Special Judge (Economic Offences), Dhanbad in C.O. Case No. 41/2004 holding the petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 277 of the Income Tax Act and directing him to undergo R.I. for 06 months along with fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default stipulation, has been upheld and confirmed.
3. Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that the petitioner Shashi Bhusan Bhuian was permanent employee of Mugma Area Eastern Coalfield Limited, a subsidiary of Coal India Limited and he is also a Tax assesse and required to file Form-16 Income Tax Return, he filed the same on 28.07.2003 for assessment Year 2002-03 showing his annual Income to be Rs. 1,81,050/- with T.D.S. Certificate purported to be issued by Employer and he claimed for refund of Rs. 35,500/- as excess deduction of tax as an exemption on account of Housing Loan. It appears that in course of enquiry, it was found that T.D.S. Certificate has not been issued by Mugma Colliery and no housing loan was sanctioned by any Bank in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, a notice was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner submitted his reply that since he is not an educated person and requested to office clerk Sri Satyaban Roy for filing the Income Tax Return and without his instruction, the said return was submitted, although he has not claimed any refund.
4. Accordingly, a complaint was lodged for the offence under Section 277 of the Income Tax Act against the petitioner. He denied the accusation and claimed to be tried.
5. In course of trial, altogether 06 witnesses were examined by the complainant. Apart from oral evidence, following documentary evidence has been adduced by the prosecution: –
Exhibit-1: Sanction Order
Exhibit-2: Complaint Petition.
Exhibit-3: Original Return (SARAL) of 2002-03.
Exhibit-3/1: Computation of Income.
Exhibit-3/2: T. D. S. (Form-16A).
Exhibit-3/3: Letter issued from Eastern Coalfield Ltd. (attached with Return).
Exhibit-3/4: Letter of Bank of India, Chirkunda (attached with Return).
Exhibit-4: Letter of Branch Manager, B.O.I., Chirkunda.
Exhibit-5: True copy of T.D.S. received from ECL, Mugma.
Exhibit-6: Show-cause issued to the accused / appellant by Income Tax Officer of Sr. Accounts Officer of Baramuri OCP Area.
Exhibit-7: Reply of show cause by accused / appellant.
Exhibit-8: Certified copy of Form No. 49-A.
6. However, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the defence. The case of defence is denial from occurrence and false implication and no mens rea or intention for committing such crime has been proved by the prosecution.
7. The learned trial court, after taking into consideration the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, recorded the specific findings about guilt of the petitioner for the offence under Section 277 of the Income Tax Act and convicted and sentenced him accordingly, as stated above.
8. Assailing the impugned judgment, Cr. Appeal No. 281/2013 preferred by the petitioner against the impugned judgment passed by the learned Special Judge (Economic Offences), which has also been dismissed after re-assessing the evidence available on record.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no offence under Section 277 of the Income Tax Act is attracted against the petitioner as per reply to show cause (Exhibit-7).
10. It is further submitted that P.W.-4, Chandra Prakash Bhatia, the complainant himself has categorically submitted that on the show cause reply submitted by the petitioner, he has conducted no enquiry. Therefore, both trial court as well as appellate court has committed serious error of law in arriving at right conclusion. As such, the conviction and sentence of the petitioner is liable to be set aside and this revision may be allowed.
11. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has controverted the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and has submitted that none of the grounds taken by the petitioner is legally tenable. Illiteracy or being rustic villager for the purpose of disclosure in the Income Tax Return is no concern or any excuse. The petitioner has specifically claimed deductions and refund of Rs. 35,500/- due to housing loan, but on enquiry, it was found that he has taken no housing loan at all. Therefore, he has willingly and deliberately filed false statement for claiming refund, which comes within the ambit of Section 277 of the Income Tax Act. There are concurrent findings about the guilt of the appellant / petitioner and there is no valid reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the trial court as well as appellate court. This revision has no merits and fit to be dismissed.
12. I have gone through the judgment passed by the learned trial court as well as learned appellate court. It appears that P.W.-4 Chandra Prakash Bhatia, the complainant has clearly stated that he was posted as Income Tax Officer at Dhanbad in financial year 2003-04 and the present petitioner filed return for the assessment year 2002-03 claiming refund of Rs. 35,500/ -. He filed TDS Certificate Form-16 of Eastern Coalfield Ltd. account of Bank of India, on the enquiry, it was found that document filed by the appellant / petitioner was forged and enquiry was conducted by Sr. Accounts Officer. The Bank of India has also replied that there was no housing loan in the name of accused and a show cause was issued against the petitioner, but no satisfactory reply was given, although he admits the signature on his reply.
13. Similarly, P.W.-6 Sanjit Kumar Mitra, the then Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax has also proved the show cause notice issued against the petitioner (Exhibit-6) and its reply given by the petitioner (Exhibit-7) and Form-49 and clearly stated that accused has relied upon forged document in return. From the impugned judgment, it is crystal clear that present petitioner has claimed on the basis of forged document, a refund of Rs. 35,500/- for which no valid explanation or reasons has been furnished by him.
14. At this juncture, the relevant provisions i.e. Section 277 and 278E of the Income Tax Act are extracted herein:-
277. [ False statement in verification, etc. I Substituted by Act 41 of 1975, Section 70, for Section 277 (w.e.f. 1.10.1975).]
– 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 not believe to be true, he shall be punishable,-
i. 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;
ii. 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.]
278E. [ Presumption as to culpable mental state. [Inserted by Act 46 of 1986, Section 29 (w.e.f. 10.9.1986).]
(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 with respect to the act charged as an offence in that prosecution.
Explanation. – In this sub-section, “culpable mental state” includes intention, motive or knowledge of a fact, or belief in, or reason to believe, a fact.
(2) For the purposes of this section, a fact is said to be proved only when the Court believes it to exist beyond reasonable doubt and not merely when its existence is established by a preponderance of probability.]
15. It appears that the learned trial court has passed a reasoned order, which has been upheld by the learned appellate court. Therefore, I do not find any valid reasons for interfering in the impugned judgment and no legal substance in the point of argument raised by the petitioner.
16. Accordingly, this revision is
17. The petitioner is on bail. His bail bond is hereby cancelled.
18. The petitioner is directed to surrender before the concerned Trial Court within two months from the date of this judgment and receive the remaining sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court and undergo the remaining period of imprisonment, failing which, the learned Trial Court shall take all coercive steps in securing the attendance of the petitioner and sending him under proper conviction warrant to jail custody for undergoing the remaining period of sentence awarded to him.
19. Pending LA., if any stands disposed of.
20. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be sent to the concerned court for information and needful.
Author Bio
