Income Tax Officer vs Smt. Gaura Devi

Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.—This appeal has been filed by the Income Tax Officer Ward 2(3) Jaipur against Smt. Gaura Devi against the judgment dated April 3, 1996 of Special Judge (Communal Riots and Mansingh Murder Case) Jaipur by which the accused respondent was acquitted of the charge u/s 276C(1) of the income tax Act and quashed and set aside the order dated Feb. 17, 1992 of Special Judge (Economic Offences) Jaipur convicting the accused respondent u/s 276C(1) of the Income Tax and sentenced her for three months RI and fine of Rs. 5,000 in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month SI. Inspite of notice to the accused respondent and summoning by bailable warrant, nobody appeared on her behalf. On the judgment of the appellate court in April, 1996 the accused respondent was more than 70 years of age and now she must have crossed more than 83 years of age.

Brief facts of the case are that a search was conducted on October 12, 1983 at the residence and business premises of accused respondent. During the course of search statement of accused respondent was recorded. Accused respondent specifically denied to have any bank locker in her own name or in the joint name of any other family member. During course of search key of locker No. 388 of Central Bank of India Johari Gbazar was found in residential premises of accused respondent and from inquiries conducted it revealed that from locker No. 388 and from another locker No. 2900 of Bank of Rajasthan, Johari Bazar gold ornaments weighing 1300.50 gms. and 412 gms. worth Rs. 2,75,000 were recovered, for which approximately tax of Rs. 1,50,000 attempted to be evaded by the accused respondent. Complaint was filed at the instance of Commissioner of income Tax on March 31, 1984 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate (Economic offences) Jaipur, on this complaint cognizance u/s 276C(1) of the I.T. Act and Sections 181 and 193 IPC were taken by the Court and accused respondent was summoned by bailable warrants and after her appearance in the court, statements of five witnesses were recorded, Statement of accused respondent was also recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. and she produced one witness Prabhu Dayal in defence. After hearing arguments the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic offences) Jaipur vide judgment dated Feb. 17, 1992 convicted the accused respondent u/s 276C(1) and sentenced her to 3 months RI and fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment offine she was to under go one month''s SI. Against this order accused respondent filed appeal and the appellate court after hearing arguments allowed the appeal vide judgment dated April 3, 1996. Against this order, the present appeal has been filed.

The learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the accused respondent evaded tax penalty and interest and thus liable for punishment. The statement of accused respondent was recorded by Ramesh Chand Chopra on October 12, 1983 and she denied to have any bank locker whereas from the enquiry conducted during search it was found that accused respondent was having two bank lockers having jewellery of 1712.50 Gms. Thus the trial court rightly convicted the accused respondent but the appellate court set aside the order of acquittal without any cogent reason.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and gone through the entire record. The judgment passed by the appellate court is perfectly according to law and there is no illegality or infirmity in the same. The appellate court held that the offence committed by the accused respondent was compoundable and no notice was sent to her before filing complaint before the Judicial Magistrate and thus the judgment of conviction was set aside. The appellate court also gave a finding that the explanation of the accused respondent before the Income tax authorities was accepted and only 205 Gms. Of gold was found to be undeclared. If the income tax authorities before filing or before getting sanction from the Commissioner of Income tax, correct facts were brought to his notice he would not have given any sanction for filing the complaint. Thus the order of the appellate court acquitting the accused respondent is reasoned order and the same cannot be set aside in appellate jurisdiction.

Thus the order passed by the appellate court does not call for any interference in appellate jurisdiction and the appeal stands dismissed.