INCOME TAX OFFICER Vs. J CHITRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Income-tax Officer, City Circle IV(II), filed a complaint before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, against Tmt. Chitra, Thiru R. Janardhanam and Thiru Chinni Mohan Rao as the accused, alleging that they have committed offences punishable under Sections 120B, 193, 196 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 276C(1), 277 and 278 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

(2.) THE gist of the complaint is as follows :

(3.) THE point: THE first accused is the wife of the second accused. THE first accused was the owner of a house property comprised in Door No. 35, Anna Pillai Street, Chennai-1. She sold the same on July 31, 1981, after obtaining the clearance certificate under Section 230A of the Income-tax Act. THE second accused is the joint executant of the sale deed. THE third accused is the income-tax practitioner, who allegedly filled up those particulars in the clearance certificate, before submitting it to the issuing authority and helped in the registration of the document of sale. THE property was acquired by the first accused in a partition. Section 230A of the Income-tax Act provides that whoever transfers a property exceeding a value of Rs. 50,000 he must obtain a clearance certificate in Form No. 34A from the Income-tax Officer and produce the same along with the document to be registered. THE first accused presented an application for the grant of certificate under Section 230A, on July 31, 1981, to the Income-tax Officer, City Circle-III(10), Madras-6. In the application; she has given her address at No. 15, Adiyappa Naicken Street, Madras. THE same address was given as regards the second accused, her husband. THE Income-tax Officer issued the certificate, believing the declaration to be true and the certificate was collected by the third accused. THE third accused figured as a witness to the registration of the document which was registered on July 31, 1981, by the Joint Sub-Registrar, No. III, Madras (North). An investigation revealed that accused Nos. 1 and 2 never resided at Door No. 15, Adiyappa Naicken Street, and they were residing only in Old No. 15, New No. 45, Strotten Muthiah Mudali Street, Chennai-1. But, in the document, that was registered on the same day, the first accused has given her address as No. 45, Strotten Muthiah Mudali Street, Chennai-1, whereas in Form No. 34A as well as in the draft sale deed, the address given was No. 15, Adiyappa Naicken Street, Chennai. THE first accused has stated that she handed over a signed blank application form for income-tax clearance certificate to the third accused, and the third accused filled up that form. Only the Income-tax Officer having jurisdiction over the permanent residence of the vendor can take action for collecting the income-tax on capital gains.