A Delhi Court recently convictedand sentenced a woman to sixmonths in jail for not filing areturn on income of Rs two crores.
This case pertains to a complaintfiled by the Income Tax Office(ITO) alleging that TDS (taxdeducted at source) amounting toRs. Two lakh was deductedagainst the receipt of Rs. twocrore made to the accused duringthe financial year 2013-14,however, no return of income forthe assessment year 2014-15 was filed by the assessee/accused.
Additional Chief MetropolitanMagistrate (ACMM) Mayank Mittalsentenced Savitri after hearingsubmissions and considering thefacts and circumstances of thecase.
“The convict is awarded asentence of simple imprisonmentfor six months with a fine of Rs5,000 and in default to undergosimple imprisonment for onemonth,” ACMM Mittal said in theorder passed on March 4.
However, the court granted her 30 days’ bail to challenge the order after considering her application.
Special public prosecutor (SPP)Arpit Batra submitted that what ismaterial for imposing a sentence on a convict is not theamount of tax evaded, but thepurpose of the provision.
It was also submitted that thepurpose of the provision isdeterrence among the persons liable to pay the tax tofile their return of income in timeand to pay the tax accordingly.
He also submitted that amaximum amount ofimprisonment should be awardedto the convict and a substantialamount of fine should also beimposed.
On the other hand, counsel for the convict submitted that the sentence awarded to the convict should concern the social circumstances of the convict and the condition of the convict at the time of the commission of a crin and at the time of imposing of sentence.
It was submitted that the convictis a widow lady and uneducated.There is no one in the family ofconvicts to take care of the familyexcept the convict only.
As per the Prosecution, a letter onSeptember 11, 2017, was issued bythe ITO to the convict forverification of data on whetherthe income tax return was filed forthe assessment year 2014-15 ornot, however, the accused failedto file a reply.
A notice dated January 10, 2018,under Section 142(1) of TheIncome Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act) wasissued to the accused withdirection to furnish the return ofassessment year 2014-15, however,no compliance was made by theassessee / accused, theProsecution said
Thereafter, ITO issued a notice onJanuary 22, 2018, under Section271F of The IT Act to the accusedfor non-filing of the return andfurther accused had not botheredto reply to the same.
Hence, by way of an order datedFebruary 9, 2018, the accused wasdirected to pay a penalty of Rs5,000.
A proposal for a grant of sanctionwas sent to the PrincipalCommissioner of Income Tax.
Before the issuance of a sanction,a show cause notice underSection 276CC of the IT Act wasissued to her. Thereafter, a replyon behalf of the convict was filedby her authorized representativeon March 18, 2018.
After considering the same andgiving sufficient opportunities tothe convict, the PrincipalCommissioner of Income Tax, NewDelhi, passed a sanction orderpermitting the launching ofprosecution against the accusedand directed the Income TaxOfficer, to file the presentcomplaint u/s 276CC read with 279of IT Act.
While convicting Savitri onFebruary 28, the Court had saidthe complainant has been able toprove beyond reasonable doubtthe service of letter/notice issuedto the accused dated September11, 2017, and notice issued underSection 142(1) of The Act datedJanuary 10, 2018, whereby theaccused was duty bound to file areturn of income whichadmittedly not filed by theaccused.
The Court held that the accusedalso could not bring any materialor fact before the court either tobring its case within the scope ofproviso to Section 276CC of TheAct. The accused also could notbring any evidence on record torebut the presumption of culpablemental state under Section 278Eof The Act.
” Accordingly, the accused is heldguilty of not filing the return ofincome for the assessment year2014-15 under Section 276CCThe Act. Accordingly, the accusedis convicted for
an offence punishable under section 276CC of the Act, ” the court said in the judgement.