SHADILAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGAINST the impugned judgment dated October 8, 2001, passed by the 14th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore, in Cr. Appeal No. 37 of 1996, arising out of Cr. Case No. 3 of 1987 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Indore, dated January 29, 1996, convicting the applicant for the offence under Section 276C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 3,000, in default, further simple imprisonment for two months. He was also convicted for breach of Section 277 of the Income-tax Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 2,000, in default further simple imprisonment for one month, this revision has been filed.

(2.) THE necessary facts in a narrow compass before the courts below were that the applicant submitted his income-tax return for the year 1982-83 on December 19, 1983. In the said return, he had shown the sale of his truck bearing Registration No. RRN 9872 to one Avtarsingh and Co., for a consideration of Rs. 80,000. But, when the matter was enquired into by the Income-tax Department, it was found to be sold for Rs. 1,30,000. THErefore, the charge against the applicant was that knowingly in the return, he had submitted false information. THEreafter, the applicant had submitted a revised return on March 31, 1983, wherein he had shown the sale of the truck for Rs. 1,30,000 and thus, concealed income of Rs. 50,000. It has also been alleged that the applicant is not entitled for benefit of the amnesty scheme since he was caught by the Department in an enquiry. THErefore, he has committed the offences punishable under Sections 277 and 276C of the Income-tax Act.

(3.) THE revised return was submitted by the applicant in which, he had shown the sale of the truck at the cost of Rs. 1,30,000, whereas in the first return, the cost of the truck was shown only at Rs. 80,000 and while considering the first return, the Department had traced and pointed out this fact. THEreafter, the revised return was filed saying that by mistake in the first return, the cost was shown at Rs. 80,000. THE defence of the applicant in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is that there was a settlement between him and the purchaser Avtarsingh that if the applicant would have purchased new tyres for the truck, in that situation, the purchaser Avtarsingh was required to pay Rs. 1,30,000, but since he did not purchase new tyres for the said truck, therefore, he had received only Rs. 80,000 as consideration for the sale of the truck. This defence of the applicant is contrary to his revised return. If this was so why he had filed the revised return in which he has shown the cost of the truck as Rs. 1,30,000. This revised return was filed after taking the suppression of income by the taxing authority. So the version of the applicant is contrary and, therefore, it cannot be said that he had no mens rea for evading the tax because of bona fide mistake he had wrongly mentioned the price of the truck Rs. 80,000 in the first return and, thereafter, corrected the same by filing the revised return.