Crl.p/100919/2016 Of Magdum Dundappa Lokappa v. Income Tax Department

IN THER HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKDHARWAD BENCH ON THE: 2[th]DAY OF OCTOBER 2016 BEEBEO THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATHCRIMINAL PETITION No.100919 of 2016 BETWERE 1.MAGDUM DUNDAPPA LOKAPPAAGE:66 YEARSPROP. MALLIKARJUN CLINICHOSPETH GALLI, GOKAKDIST. BELAGAVIAGE:66 YEARSPROP. MALLIKARJUN CLINICHOSPETH GALLI, GOKAKDIST. BELAGAVI 2.SURESH SHOLAPURMATHCHARTKRED ACCOUNTANTAGE:62 YEARSCOURT ROAD, GOKAKDIST. BELAGAVICHARTKRED ACCOUNTANTAGE:62 YEARSCOURT ROAD, GOKAKDIST. BELAGAVI (By Srt1 ASHOK A KULKARNI, ADV. .. PETITIONERS ANI INCOME TAX DEPARTMENTREPRESENTED BY LTS INCOMETAX OFFICER SHRI. ANGAD KUMARAGED 37 YEARS, INCOME TAX OFFICERWARD-I, GOKAK ~. RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT INCC NO. 684 OF 2015 IN ANNEXUREB-A PENDING BRBEORE TPRINCIPAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, GOKAK IN SOFAS AS PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED. THIS CRIMINAL PHRTITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSIONTHIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER A return income was filed by the first petitioner with thehelp of the second petitioner who 1s a chartered accountant,Taxable income of Rs.1,23,220/- was declared. Income tax liableto be paid was Rs.1,465/-. Tax of Rs.1,465/- was submitted tothe department. On inquiry, it was found that only an amount ofRs.465/- was paid. That the document had been tampered byshowing it as 1,465/-. Hence, a private complaint was filed bythe income tax Department under Section 200 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure for the offence punishable under Section276(C)(2) and 277of the Income Tax Act. Seeking quashing ofthe proceedings, the present petition is filed, ? Learned counsel for the petitioners contends thatthere 1s an error committed by the clerk of the Charteredaccountant. Therefore, initiation of the proceedings is erroneous.He further contends that in terms of the circular, if there is an attempt to evade tax of less than Rs.25, O00/-, no prosecutioncould be launched. Hence initiation of proceedings is an abuseof process of the law, 2.On hearing learned counsel, Pam of the consideredview that there is no merit in this petition. The charges againstthe petitioner are 1n violation of Sections 276(C)(2) and 277 of theIncome Tax Act, 1961. Section 277 of the Income Tax Act wouldread that 1f any person makes a false statement, he would be liablefor prosecution as narrated therein, A The contention of the petitioner is that the taxamount is less than Rs.25,000/- and therefore an attempt to evadetax 1s covered by the circular. Whether the amount involved 1sless than Rs.25,000/- or less is irrelevant. Section 277 deals withmaking a false declaration. Further, the allegation is that thedocument has been tampered by showing that he has paid the taxcorrectly. Whether the amount is covered by the circular or notbecomes an irrelevant fact. The allegation that he has made a false statement to the department is admitted. The contention 1sthat 1t comes within the monetary limit. V’am unable to acceptsuch a contention. The allegation is with regard to filing of a falsedeclaration. Therefore, the provisions of law stand applicable andcircular prescribing a monetary limit therefore would not beapplicable to the case on hand. The question of evading the taxand the consequential monetary limit in launching the prosecutionis an alien consideration. It is not a case of evading the tax. Itisacase of furnishing of false declaration while submitting the return.Submission of a false declaration 1s quite different from evadingthe tax. The circular would therefore be applicable in case ofevasion of tax. Under no grounds the circular could be read withregard to filing of a false declaration. Since the case pertains to afalse declaration, the circular cannot come to the aid of thepetitioners. Hence, I find no good ground to entertain thepetition. The petition is rejected, Sd/-JUDGE