JOGENDRA SINGH ANAND V. UNION OF INDIA

CRLR/460/1992

AI Insights

This case involves a criminal revision under Section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order passed by the Sessions Judge, Allahabad, which affirmed the conviction and sentencing of Jogendra Singh Anand under Sections 276(c) and 277 of the Income Tax Act for concealing income and making false statements. The revisionist had not shown some income in his tax return for the Assessment Year 1980-81, which led to legal proceedings. The trial court convicted him, and the appellate court upheld the decision. The revisionist, now aged 88 and suffering from cancer, sought relief from the court, which considered his age and health condition in deciding not to enforce the prison sentence but instead impose a monetary penalty.

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 740785 (HC-ALLAHABAD)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 04-08-2018
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: AGA
• Assessee Lawyers: A K AWASTHI; ANAND PAUL; BRIJ PAUL; V C TEWARI
• Keywords: Fine; Income concealment; Rigorous imprisonment; Tax Evasion; Compounding of sentence
• Section: 143(3); 276 C; 277

Judgement Text

"Court No. - 54 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 460 of 1992 Revisionist :- Jogendra Singh Anand Opposite Party :- Union Of India Counsel for Revisionist :- A.K. Awasthi,Anand Prakash Paul,Brij Bhushan Paul,V.C. Tewari Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment and order dated 13th January, 1992 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 1990, which was directed against the judgment and order dated 7th February, 1990 passed by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad in Criminal Case No.558 of 1983, convicting and sentencing the revisionist- petitioner under Section 276 (c) of the Income Tax Act for three months rigorous imprisonment and fine to the tune of Rs.3,000/- and under Section 277 of the Income Tax Act for three months rigorous imprisonment and fine to the tune of Rs.2,000/. In default of payment, the revisionist would undergo rigorous imprisonment of one month upon each of the two counts. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. The learned appellate Court had dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order passed by the trial Court. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the revisionist-petitioner at the relevant point of time i.e. in the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as \"A.Y.\") 1980-81 took a contract for supply and transportation of material from U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam, Nainital. In income tax return, he did not show some income and, therefore, a notice under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as \"the Act') was issued, asking him to explain why the aforesaid amount was not shown in the return and why it should not be treated as income concealed by him. The assessment proceedings thereafter, were initiated under Section 143(3) of the Act and an additional amount of Rs.5,160/- was added and the proceedings were finalized at total income of Rs.44,579/-. 4. The Income Tax Department thereafter, filed a complaint before the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 276- C and 277 of the Act against the revisionist-petitioner and the learned trial Court vide its judgment and order dated 7th February, 1990 convicted and sentenced the revisionist- petitioner as mentioned above. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner submits that the revisionist-petitioner has already paid the tax assessed and the penalty imposed upon him. At this distant point of time, it would not be proper to send the revisionist-petitioner to jail, who is suffering from cancer and is around 88 years of age. The revisionist-petitioner is ready and willing to deposit any amount in lieu of the sentence of three months as awarded to him by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court. 6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner that the case pertains to the year 1980- 81 and the revisionist-petitioner is around 88 years of age suffering from cancer, it would not be proper and in the interest of justice to send him to prison to undergo the sentence as awarded by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court. The revisionist-petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) with the Income Tax Department. If the revisionist-petitioner deposits Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) with the Income Tax Department with 15 days from today, the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court would stand compounded. 7. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the revision is disposed of finally. Order Date :- 4.8.2018 MVS Chauhan/- "