Telangana High Court
M/S. Sujata Electrical Infratech ... vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax on 4 November, 2022
Bench: K.Surender
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
Criminal Petition No.5210 OF 2019
Between:
M/s.Sujata Electrical Infratech
India Private Limited & Another ... Petitioners
And
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,
Circle-3(2), rep. by its Spl. Public Prosecutor,
Income Tax, High Court for the State of,
Telangana, Hyderabad ... Respondent
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 04.11.2022
Submitted for approval.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
1 Whether Reporters of Local
newspapers may be allowed to Yes/No
see the Judgments?
2 Whether the copies of judgment
may be marked to Law Yes/No
Reporters/Journals
3 Whether Their
Ladyship/Lordship wish to see Yes/No
the fair copy of the Judgment?
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
2
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER
+ CRL.P. No. 5210 of 2019
% Dated 04.11.2022
#M/s Sujata Electrical Infratech
India Private Limited & Another ... Petitioners
And
$ Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,
Circle-3(2), rep. by its Spl. Public Prosecutor,
Income Tax, High Court for the State of,
Telangana, Hyderabad. ... Respondent
! Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri S.Ravi, learned Senior Counsel for
Ms.Divya Datla
^ Counsel for the Respondent: Sri B.Narasimha Sharma for
Enforcement Directorate.
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1
Criminal Petition Nos. 4891 & 4892 of 2014
2
(1999) 5 SCC 241
3
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5210 of 2019
ORDER:
1. This petition is filed to quash the proceedings against the
petitioners/A1 to A3 in CC No.37 of 2018 on the file of Special
Judge for Economic Offences, Hyderabad.
2. The 1st petitioner filed original return of income tax in the
assessment year 2014-15 on 29.11.2014 declaring a total income of
Rs.1,03,44,060/-. After claiming a tax credit for TDS of Rs.53,016/,
out of the admitted tax liability, as per the return of income, the
accused filed return of Rs.38,00,170/-. However, the tax was not
paid.
3. It is the case of the respondent that the accused has willfully
defaulted in payment of self assessment tax of admitted income as
required under Section 140A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 attracting
the provisions under Section 276C(2) of the Act, which penalizes
such default.
4. The Income Tax Department issued a show-cause notice dated
09.06.2016 which was served on the petitioners/accused. The
petitioners replied in writing on 23.06.2016 informing that there
was no willful default or malafide intention to evade tax payment,
but the same was on account of certain financial difficulties beyond
control. Along with reply, a letter along with a copy of self
assessment tax challan for Rs.50,55,310/- along with interest was
paid and requested the department not to initiate any proceedings.
5. However, according to the department, since the accused with
an intention to evade tax filed return without paying self
assessment tax, the accused committed an offence under Section
276C(2) r/w 278B of the Income Tax Act. Further there is a
presumption of culpable mental state on the part of the accused for
such default.
6. Sri S.Ravi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
Petitioners would submit that there is no evasion of tax. Even
according to the department, though the assessed tax was
Rs.38,00,170/-, the petitioners paid along with interest an amount
of Rs.50,55,310/-. The said conduct itself indicates that there was
never any intention or attempt to evade tax payment, for which
reason, the penal provision under Income Tax Act is not attracted.
In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment in the case
of Vyalikaval House Building Co-operative Society Limited v.
The Income Tax Department, Central Circle-1(1)[Criminal
Petition Nos.4891 and 4892 of 2014, dated 14.06.2019] of
Karnataka High Court.
7. In the aforesaid judgment, the accused was prosecuted on the
ground that though returns were filed, he failed to pay the said tax
amount. The Court found that the act of filing returns by itself
cannot be construed as an attempt to evade tax rather it would
suggest that there was a voluntary declaration to pay the tax.
8. In the case of Prem Dass v. Income Tax Officer [(1999) 5
Supreme Court Cases 241], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a
positive act on the part of the accused is required to establish a
charge under Section 276-C(2).
9. Learned Senior Counsel also relied upon the judgment of this
Court in Criminal Petition No.3164 of 2008, dated September,
2015, which was decided on similar lines.
10. The Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the
Income Tax Department submits that whether there was an
intention or not to evade tax is subject matter of trial and this Court
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C cannot decide the said fact. Further,
the judgment relied by the learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioners, have no bearing since the facts in present case are
distinguishable on facts of the judgments relied by the learned
Senior Counsel. He further submits that the Income Tax
department has to be given an opportunity to establish its case
before the concerned Court and the defence of the petitioners can
be taken before the trial Court, as such, petition has to be
dismissed.
11. In the present case, the facts are not disputed either by the
petitioners or by the department. The 1st petitioner company filed
return of Income Tax admitting the tax liability of Rs.38,00,170/-,
but failed to make payment. However, on receiving notice dated
09.06.2016, in reply, the petitioners enclosed a challan for an
amount of Rs.50,55,310/- (Rs.12,55,140/- excess towards interest
and other charges) towards tax. The present prosecution was
launched on 01.03.2018.
12. Section 276C of Income Tax Act is extracted hereunder:
"276C. 2 Wilful attempt to evade tax, etc.
(1) If a person wilfully attempts in any manner whatsoever to evade any tax,
penalty or interest chargeable or imposable under this Act, he shall, without
prejudice to any penalty that may be imposable on him under any other
provision of this Act, be punishable,-
(i) in a case where the amount sought to be evaded 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.
(2) If a person wilfully attempts in any manner whatsoever to evade the
payment of any tax, penalty or interest under this Act, he shall, without
prejudice to any penalty that may be imposable on him under any other
provision of this Act, be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term
which shall not be less than three months but which may extend to three
years and shall, in the discretion of the court, also be liable to fine.
Explanation.- For the purposes of this section, a wilful attempt to evade any
tax, penalty or interest chargeable or imposable under this Act or the
payment thereof shall include a case where any person-
(i) has in his possession or control any books of account or other
documents (being books of account or other documents relevant to any
proceeding under this Act) containing a false entry or statement; or
(ii) makes or causes to be made any false entry or statement in such books
of account or other documents; or
(iii) wilfully omits or causes to be omitted any relevant entry or statement in
such books of account or other documents; or
(iv) causes any other circumstance to exist which will have the effect of
enabling such person to evade any tax, penalty or interest chargeable or
imposable under this Act or the payment thereof.]"
13. From the present facts, it has to be ascertained whether
requisite mens rea was present to infer a willful attempt at evading
tax. Unless a person with dishonest intention tries to conceal facts
and consequently attempts at evading the tax, which he is liable to
pay are the requisite ingredients to prosecute person under Section
276C of the Income Tax Act.
14. It is not the case of the Income Tax department that the self
assessment tax returns which were filed had an element of
concealment on any factual aspects and tried to evade tax, which is
liable to paid. There is no dispute regarding the claims made by the
petitioners in their income tax returns.
15. Having received the notice, the petitioners have paid additional
amount of Rs.12,55,140/- towards interest and other charges,
apart from the assessed tax. It was stated that due to financial
difficulties beyond control, the amount could not be paid in time.
16. As already discussed, this is not a case wherein false
declaration is made or that the department has found that there is
a deliberate attempt to evade tax by suppressing material
information. Whether there is willful delay or not are discernible
from the facts of the case.
17. The conduct of the petitioners itself would indicate that it was
a case of delayed payment of tax or deferred payment. The tax along
with interest and penalty was accepted by the department without
any reservations. Such delay in the payment will not amount to
willful attempt to evade tax. Cogent reasons are given stating that
tax could not be paid due to financial difficulties. It cannot be
inferred from the facts of the present case that any attempt was
deliberately made to evade the tax payment. For the said reasons,
the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners would
an abuse of process of the Court. It is a fit case wherein this Court
has to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to
quash the proceedings against the petitioners.
18. Accordingly the proceedings against the petitioners in CC
No.37 of 2018 on the file of Special Judge for Economic Offences,
Hyderabad are hereby quashed and the Criminal Petition is allowed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 04.11.2022
Note: LR copy to be marked.
B/o.kvs
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5210 of 2019
Date: 04.11.2022.
kvs
