Satwant Singh Mehta v. Income Tax Officer, Faridkot

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH CRR No.4559 of 2016 (O&M)Date of Decision: May 03, 2017 Satwant Singh Mehta ...Petitioner VERSUS Income Tax Officer, Faridkot ...Respondent CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH Present:Mr.Vivek Goel, Advocatefor the petitioner. Mr.Denesh Goyal, Advocatefor the respondent. **** INDERJIT SINGH, J. The present revision has been filed by the petitioner SatwantSingh Mehta against respondent Income Tax Officer, Faridkot, challengingthe impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated06.02.2014 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot, videwhich the petitioner was convicted under Sections 276-C and 277 of theIncome Tax Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for aperiod of two years and to pay fine of `2500/- and in default of payment offine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three monthsunder each Section and also challenging the judgment dated 29.11.2016passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Faridkot, vide which appeal filedVineet Gulati2017.05.30 17:09I attest to the accuracy andby petitioner was dismissed. Both the sentences were ordered to runauthenticity of this documentChandigarh concurrently. From the record, I find that a complaint was filed againstaccused-petitioner under Sections 276-C and 277 of the Income Tax Act.The brief averments of the complaint as noted down in the judgment passedby learned CJM, Faridkot, are as under:- “2. Brief allegations as contained in the complaint are thatcomplainant is an Income Tax Officer, Ward-III (4), Faridkotand is a public servant. He has been authorized to file thiscomplaint vide order/sanction of Commissioner of Income Tax,Bathinda at his instance. Accused Satwant Singh Mehta hasbeen doing the money lending business and deriving money onaccount of on interest as was confirmed by him in hisstatement recorded on 26.03.2004. The then Income TaxOfficer after recording satisfaction, issued notice underSection 148 of the Income Tax which was duly served upon theaccused on 29.03.2004. In response to that notice, return wasfiled by the accused showing an income of Rs.38,500/- on06.05.2004. Verification portion of the return and annexureswere signed by the accused. Same were processed on26.08.2004 under Section 143 (1) of the Act. Thereafter, caseof the accused was selected for scrutiny as per the instructionsof the Board. Vide order dated 21.03.2005, the assessment wascompleted under Section 143 (3) of the Act at an income ofRs.3,57,500/- as against returned income of Rs.38,500/-.During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticedthat accused had given loans to various persons i.e. RajeshKumar Malhotra on 12.11.1998 of Rs.1,20,000/-, Prahald Raion 16.11.1996 of Rs.59,000/-, Ramesh Chander on 21.11.1996of Rs.40,000/-, Subash Chander on 23.12.1996 of Rs.40,000/-and Harjit Singh on 11.03.1997 of Rs.60,000/-. But the saidamount was not reflected in the Income Tax return submittedby the accused. The then A.O. asked the accused to explainsource of above said loan advanced to above said person.Accused replied thereto on different dates. In pursuance ofassessment order dated 21.03.2005, vide which assessmentwas made at the income of Rs.3,57,500/-, penalty proceedingsunder Section 271 (1) (C) of the Act was initiated against theaccused. Accused filed an appeal before the Commissioner ofIncome Tax, Bathinda, who vide order dated 04.08.2005 hasupheld the additions of Rs.1,74,000/-. Thereafter, accused filedfurther appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Amritsar Bench, Amritsar against the order of Commissionerof Income Tax, Bathinda, which vide its order dated06.01.2006 upheld the addition of Rs.1,66,000/-. 3. After granting opportunities to the accused, thecomplainant/assessing officer came to the conclusion that theaccused has deliberately concealed the particulars of hisincome and thus imposed a penalty of Rs.54,800/- vide orderdated 27.04.2006. The appeal of the accused against theimposition of penalty under Section 271(1) (C) of the Act wasdismissed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda videits order dated 11.10.2006. 4. The accused willfully attempted to evade tax/penalty/interestimposable/chargeable under the Act and furnished inaccurateparticulars of his income and thus committed offencepunishable under Section 276-C of the Act. Further, theverification of the return filed by the accused deliveredstatements of accounts were false which the accused knew andbelieved to be false and thus committed offence punishableunder Section 277 of the Act. Hence, this complaint.” Learned CJM, Faridkot, after appreciating the evidence, convicted and sentenced the petitioner as stated above. An appeal was filedby the petitioner and the same was dismissed by learned Sessions Judge,Faridkot, vide judgment dated 29.11.2016. Aggrieved from the above-said judgments, present revisionpetition has been filed by the petitioner. At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner didnot dispute the concurrent findings given by learned Courts below,regarding conviction and only contended on the point of reduction ofsentence. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that petitioner is firstoffender, only bread earner of the family and suffering from the criminalproceedings since 2008 and is undergoing sentence since 29.11.2016. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well aslearned State counsel and have gone through the record. In view of the evidence, I find that the prosecution has dulyproved its case by leading cogent evidence beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the judgment of conviction dated 06.02.2014 passed by learnedCJM, Faridkot, is correct, as per law and does not require any interferencefrom this Court. Vide separate of even date, CRM No.4826 of 2017 has beenallowed and the sentenced imposed upon the petitioner in the present casehas been ordered to run concurrently with the sentence passed in CRRNo.4561 of 2016. As the petitioner is already undergoing sentence in CRRNo.4561 of 2016 and the sentence imposed upon the petitioner in thepresent case has already been ordered to run concurrently with that case(CRR no.4561 of 2016), as stated above, therefore, the sentence ofpetitioner in the present case is reduced to the sentence already undergoneby him. However, the sentence of fine and in default thereof, shall remainthe same. Therefore, the present revision petition stands partly allowed.Petitioner Satwant Singh Mehta who is in custody, be set atliberty forthwith, if his custody is not required in connection with any othercase, subject to payment of fine, if already not paid. May 03, 2017(INDERJIT SINGH)VgulatiJUDGE Whether speaking/reasonedWhether reportable YesNo