RAJINDER KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of the present case are that the respondent No.2- Income Tax Office ("ITO") filed a complaint Case bearing No. 526721/2016, titled as "ITO Vs. Rajinder Kumar", under the provisions of Ss. 276C (1)/ 276D and 277 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the petitioner in respect of Income Tax Return pertaining to the financial year 2006-07 alleging opening of an undisclosed account in HSBC Bank, London on 20/8/1991 by the petitioner and having the maximum credit balance USD 575,010, equivalent to Rs.2,53,00,440.00 at the exchange rate of Rs.44.00 per USD for the Year 2006-07 (F.Y. 2005-06). Thereafter, a search and seizure was carried out at petitioner's residence and business premises under Sec. 132 of the Act on 23/8/2011 and notice under Sec. 153-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dtd. 26/4/2012 was issued to him for filing his Income Tax Return. In the income tax return income of Rs.6,47,19,401.00 was shown, whereas according to respondents the peak balance in the HSBC account was offered in the return of assessment year 2007-08 by the petitioner. It is further alleged that the petitioner filed a revised income tax statement on 16/5/2015 for the assessment year declaring balance in HSBC bank, London of USD 575,010 equivalent to INR 2,53,00,44/- as his income. Petitioner was served with Notice under Sec. 274d of the Income Tax Act and also a penalty of Rs.10,000.00 under Sec. 271(1) (b) of the Act was levied upon him.

(2.) On 27/2/2015, Assessment Order under Sec. 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was framed and vide order dtd. 30/4/2015 penalty of Rs.90,45,966.00 under Sec. 271(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was levied upon the petitioner for not disclosing his true income. The learned trial court vide order dtd. 18/1/2016 took cognizance of the offence alleged. Pursuant to receipt of summons, petitioner appeared before the learned trial court and was admitted to bail on furnishing of surety. The petitioner, on the ground of his old age being 80 years and medical conditions, sought exemption from personal appearance, which was granted to him. Petitioner also made an application under Sec. 245(2) Cr.P.C. before the learned trial court for dropping of the proceedings on the ground of his age and on the basis of Circular/Instruction No. 5051 dtd. 7/2/1991, however, the same was dismissed.

(3.) Petitioner has preferred the present petition seeking quashing of Complaint Case bearing No. 526721/2016, titled as "ITO Vs. Rajinder Kumar", filed under the provisions of Ss. 276C (1)/ 276D and 277 of the Income Tax Act and all consequential proceedings arising there-from.