B. Gopi vs G. Thiyagarajan, Income Tax Officer

A. Arumugasamy, J.—The criminal revision case is filed to set aside the order dated November 22, 2006, passed in C A. No. 39 of 2004 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No. II, Salem, in confirming the order dated February 19, 2004, passed in C.C. No. 109 of 2001 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Mettur Dam, in convicting the petitioner under sections 276C and 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each and imposing a fine of Rs. 1,000 each; in default, to undergo, simple imprisonment for one month each. The petitioner is an accused and the respondent is the complainant in C.C. No. 109 of 2001 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Mettur Dam. The complainant has filed a petition before the learned magistrate stating that in the income-tax returns filed by the accused for the years 1996 and 1997 on May 16, 1997, the accused has submitted a false information and claimed exemption under the head of interest on house building advance, thereby committed offences under sections 276C and 277 of the Income-tax Act. Therefore, after getting proper sanction from the authority concerned, the respondent has filed the said petition and the same was taken cognizance in C.C. No. 109 of 2001 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Mettur Dam, as stated above. After contest, the learned magistrate by judgment dated February 19, 2004, convicted the accused under sections 276C and 277 of Income-tax Act and sentenced him accordingly. Aggrieved over the same, the accused has filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No. II, Salem, in C.A. No. 39 of 2004 and by a judgment dated November 22, 2006, the said conviction and sentence of the trial court were confirmed. Hence, the present revision.

Learned counsel for the revision-petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an income-tax assessee and he was working in M/s. Chemplast P. Ltd. as an officer. He would further submit that at the time of filing the income-tax returns, he has received house building advance. Hence, he claimed exemption under the head of "interest on house building advance" and, subsequently, it was rejected and he has also claimed to refund the interest amount. Without taking note of the same, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, a case has been lodged against him without getting proper approval. It is also submitted that the respondent always used to take steps only against the salaried people just like the petitioner and leaving the big personalities who are getting income in crores. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner would pray to allow the present revision.

Learned special public prosecutor; appearing for the respondent, would submit that after getting proper sanction from the concerned authority, a case has been foisted against him on the basis of the wrong information furnished by the petitioner and the same has been mentioned in the first paragraph of the complaint itself. The learned special public prosecutor would further submit that in the eye of law, all are equal and no privilege will be shown to anyone. Hence, according to the learned special public prosecutor, the present revision has to be dismissed.

Heard both sides and I have also perused the materials available on record carefully.

Firstly, coming to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in respect of non-getting a sanction before filing a complaint, a perusal of the complaint would clearly go to show that after getting proper sanction only, the complaint has been lodged against the petitioner herein and the same was taken cognizance by the learned magistrate concerned as narrated above. Hence, this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner has got no force.

Secondly, coming to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that the Income-tax Department used to show some sort of privilege to some assessees like big personalities, a perusal of the judgment in Crl.A. No. 241 of 2001 which was produced by the learned special public prosecutor for the respondent would go to show that in similar circumstances as that of the present case, a case has been instituted against another income-tax assessee and the trial court has convicted the accused accordingly and the appellate court only acquitted the accused on technicality.

At this stage, it is represented by the learned special public prosecutor that after obtaining leave from this court, the offence has been compounded.

Therefore, I am of the view that there is no merit in this revision. Anyhow, it is left open to the respondent-Department to consider the same in the event of any such application within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order before the competent forum for appropriate relief. In the case of rejection of the said application, the judgment cited above will come to the rescue of the petitioner. Further, it is also pertinent to note that the petitioner has already filed W.P. No. 18421 of 2009 before this court challenging the order of the respondent and the same is pending. Therefore, after reaching finality in that writ petition, the respondent is directed to give effect to the order of the court in this revision.

With the above observation, the criminal revision case is disposed of.