Parveen Kumar V. Income Tax Officer, Jind and Others

CRR/604/2001

AI Insights

Parveen Kumar, a property dealer and income-tax assessee, was initially convicted under Sections 276(C)(i) and 277 of the Income Tax Act by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind, for concealing properties in his tax returns for the assessment year 1985-86. He was sentenced to two years of rigorous imprisonment and fined Rs. 3,000 for each charge, with the sentences running concurrently. His appeal to the Sessions Judge, Jind, resulted in a reduced sentence of one year. The case was brought before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, where the protracted trial and the petitioner's acceptance of his non-disclosure were considered mitigating circumstances. The court decided that further imprisonment would serve no useful purpose and thus reduced the sentence to the time already served, imposing a substantial fine instead.

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 797022 (HC-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 03-03-2009
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: R.V. Lyngdoh v. State (Delhi) Special Establishment, Harbans Singh v. State, Des Raj v. State of Haryana
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: KAPIL AGGARWAL; S S MOR
• Assessee Lawyers: NARWANA
• Keywords: Fine; Income Tax; Protracted trial; Rigorous imprisonment; Concealment of Properties; Mitigating Circumstance
• Section: 143(1); 277; 276(C)(i)

Judgement Text

"Criminal Revision No. 604 of 2001 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal Revision No. 604 of 2001 Date of Decision: 3.3.2009 Parveen Kumar …Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Jind and Others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Dr. Surya Parkash, Advocate for Mr. S.K. Garg Narwana, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Kapil Aggarwal, Advocate for Mr. K.K. Mehta, Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr.S.S. Mor, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent No.3. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Petitioner has been convicted and sentenced by the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind, vide judgment and order dated 30.8.1996 under Section 277 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. The petitioner was also Criminal Revision No. 604 of 2001 2 convicted and sentenced under Section 276(C)(i) of the Act to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrent. Aggrieved against the same, the appeal filed by the petitioner, was also dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Jind, vide judgment and order dated 22.3.2001. The Appellate Court had reduced the sentence from two years to one year rigorous imprisonment under Sections 276(C)(i) and 277 of the Act. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner was working as Property Dealer. He was income-tax assessee having a status of individual. He had concealed certain properties and plots purchased in the return filed for assessment year 1985-86. It is stated that notice under Section 143(1) of the Act was received on 17.7.1986. Notice was also issued to petitioner to participate in Selective Scrutiny Scheme. It is stated that petitioner, on appearance, admitted the lapse and had given the details of the properties which were not mentioned in the income tax returns and had also paid the penalty. Counsel for the petitioner has stated that he will not contest the petition on merits as two Courts below have upheld the conviction of the petitioner. Counsel further states that even though the Act has provided minimum sentence of three months rigorous imprisonment, long pendency of the case be taken as special reason for reduction of sentence to already undergone. Counsel has further submitted that petitioner has undergone about seven days of his actual sentence. To fortify his submissions, counsel for the petitioner relied Criminal Revision No. 604 of 2001 3 upon R.V. Lyngdoh v. State (Delhi) Special Establishment 1999(1) Recent Criminal Reports 858, Harbans Singh v. State 2003(2) Recent Criminal Reports 60 and Des Raj v. State of Haryana 1996(1) Recent Criminal Reports 689 to contend that protracted trial in itself has been taken into consideration by Courts as mitigating circumstance. Counsel further submitted that at the very outset when the notice was received, petitioner accepted non-disclosure of the properties and had paid the penalty before the competent authority. Counsel has further submitted that instead of sending the petitioner behind the bars, he may be given an opportunity to reform himself. It has been further submitted that in the last 23 years, responsibilities of the petitioner to look after his family have increased. Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that heavy fine can be imposed instead of sending the petitioner behind the bars. Mr. Kapil Aggarwal, Advocate, has stated that awarding of penalty in itself does not absolve the petitioner of his guilt. Taking into consideration the ratio of law laid down in R.V. Lyngdoh's case (supra), Harbans Singh's case (supra), and Des Raj's case (supra), I am of the view that after 23 years, no useful purpose will be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars and the protracted trial in itself is a mitigating circumstance. Therefore, sentence awarded upon the petitioner is reduced to already undergone. However, he is fastened with the fine of Rs.50,000/- which on deposit shall be disbursed to the Income-tax Department. The entire amount of fine be deposited within three months from the receipt of certified copy of judgment. In case the amount of fine is not deposited, benefit of Criminal Revision No. 604 of 2001 4 reduction in sentence shall not accrue to the petitioner. With the observations made above, the present petition is disposed off. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge March 3, 2009 “DK” "