B RAVINDRA KUMAR Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is an income-tax assessee for the accounting year 1980-81, having been convicted by the courts below under sections 276C(1)(ii) and 277(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") has preferred this revision. He filed his return of income before the Income-tax Officer, A-Ward, Rajahmundry, on 31/08/1981, for the assessment year 1981-82 declaring an income of Rs. 11,845. The charge against him is that he failed to disclose the agricultural income in column No. 12 of the return of income filed before the Income-tax Officer and as such he made a false statement in the verification of return and also delivered the enclosed false statement knowing that the verification in the return and the statement enclosed thereto are false.

(2.) The assessee challenged the prosecution on various grounds including that the sanction to prosecute him is not valid, that the non-disclosure of agricultural income on his part is not with the intention of evading tax and that the prosecution has failed to establish mens rea. Both the courts below repelled the above contentions and convicted him holding that the necessary mens rea is established in this case from the facts and circumstances of the case.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that agricultural income is not taxable, that after filing exhibit P-2 return before the Income-tax Officer for the accounting year 1980-81, the petitioner filed a revised return which is permitted under section 139(5) of the Act, that the Income-tax Officer has accepted the said revised return, that the petitioner has shown the agricultural income in the return submitted by him for the previous accounting year, that when the agricultural income is not taxable, it is not possible to contend that the agricultural income is purposely suppressed and that mens rea which is an essential ingredient for the offence is not established by the prosecution.