IN HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR No.4561 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, Advocate for petitioner. Mr.Denesh Goyal, Advocate for respondent. INDERJIT SINGH, J. present revision has been filed by petitioner Satwant Singh Mehta against respondent Income Tax Officer, Faridkot, challenging impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.02.2014 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot, vide which petitioner was convicted under Sections 276-C and 277 of Income Tax Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for period of one year and to pay fine of `1500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for period of two months under each Section and also challenging judgment dated 29.11.2016 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Faridkot, vide which appeal filed by petitioner was dismissed. Both sentences were ordered to run 1 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 02-06-2017 10:16:33 ::: CRR No.4561 of 2016 -2- concurrently. From record, I find that complaint was filed against accused-petitioner under Sections 276-C and 277 of Income Tax Act. brief averments of complaint as noted down in judgment passed by learned CJM, Faridkot, are as under:- 2. Brief allegations as contained in complaint are that complainant is Income Tax Officer, Ward-III (4), Faridkot and is public servant. He has been authorized to file this complaint vide order/sanction of Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda at his instance. Accused Satwant Singh Mehta has been doing money lending business and deriving money on account of on interest as was confirmed by him in his statement recorded on 26.03.2004. then Income Tax Officer after recording satisfaction, issued notice under Section 148 of Income Tax which was duly served upon accused on 29.03.2004. In response to that notice, return was filed by accused showing income of Rs.44,000/- on 05.05.2004. Verification portion of return and annexures were signed by accused. Same were processed on 26.08.2004 under Section 143 (1) of Act. Thereafter, case of accused was selected for scrutiny as per instructions of Board. Vide order dated 21.03.2005, assessment was completed under Section 143 (3) of Act at income of Rs.2,24,000/- as against returned income of Rs.44,000/-. During course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed that accused had given loans to various persons including to one Manjit Kaur on 02.01.1998 of Rs.1,80,000/-. But said amount was not reflected in Income Tax return submitted by accused. then A.O. asked accused to explain source of above said loan advanced to above said person. Accused replied thereto on different dates. In pursuance of assessment order dated 21.03.2005, vide which assessment was made at income of Rs.2,24,000/-, penalty proceedings under Section 271 (1) (C) of Act was initiated against accused. Accused filed appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda, who vide order dated 04.08.2005 has upheld additions of Rs.1,25,000/-. Thereafter, accused filed further appeal before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar against order of Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda where also order of Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda, was upheld by Bench. 3. After granting opportunities to accused, complainant/assessing officer came to conclusion that 2 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 02-06-2017 10:16:34 ::: CRR No.4561 of 2016 -3- accused has deliberately concealed particulars of his income and thus imposed penalty of Rs.24,700/- vide order dated 27.04.2006. appeal of accused against imposition of penalty under Section 271(1) (C) of Act was dismissed by Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda vide its order dated 11.10.2006. 4. accused willfully attempted to evade tax/penalty/interest imposable/chargeable under Act and furnished inaccurate particulars of his income and thus committed offence punishable under Section 276-C of Act. Further, verification of return filed by accused delivered statements of accounts were false which accused knew and believed to be false and thus committed offence punishable under Section 277 of Act. Hence, this complaint. Learned CJM, Faridkot, after appreciating evidence, convicted and sentenced petitioner as stated above. appeal was filed by petitioner and same was dismissed by learned Sessions Judge, Faridkot, vide judgment dated 29.11.2016. Aggrieved from above-said judgments, present revision petition has been filed by petitioner. At time of arguments, learned counsel for petitioner did not dispute concurrent findings given by learned Courts below, regarding conviction and only contended on point of reduction of sentence. Learned counsel for petitioner argued that petitioner is first offender, only bread earner of family and suffering from criminal proceedings since 2008 and is undergoing sentence since 29.11.2016. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned State counsel and have gone through record. In view of evidence, I find that prosecution has duly proved its case by leading cogent evidence beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, judgment of conviction dated 06.02.2014 passed by learned 3 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 02-06-2017 10:16:34 ::: CRR No.4561 of 2016 -4- CJM, Faridkot, is correct, as per law and does not require any interference from this Court. However, keeping in view facts and circumstances of present case and in view of fact that petitioner is stated to be first offender, only bread earner of family and is facing long protracted criminal proceedings since 2008 i.e. for last about 9 years and also in view of fact that petitioner is undergoing sentence since 29.11.2016, sentence imposed upon petitioner is reduced to sentence already undergone by him. However, sentence of fine and in default thereof, shall remain same. Therefore, present revision petition stands partly allowed. Petitioner Satwant Singh Mehta who is in custody, be set at liberty forthwith, if his custody is not required in connection with any other case, subject to payment of fine, if already not paid. May 03, 2017 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No 4 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 02-06-2017 10:16:34 ::: Satwant Singh Mehta v. Income-tax Officer, Faridkot