Subhash Kumhar V. The State of Jharkhand

Cr.Rev./1206/2022

AI Insights

The case revolves around Subhash Kumhar, who was accused of being involved in a conspiracy to obtain illegal refunds from the Income Tax Department by filing false returns. The petitioner argued that he had no direct contact with the principal accused, Prashant Pandey, and that he merely signed a hard copy of the Income Tax Return, which is now filed online without such signatures. The prosecution, represented by the CBI, provided evidence that Kumhar had filed electronic returns for the Assessment Years 2014-15 and 2015-16, claiming undue refunds. The court dismissed the revision, stating that the issues raised by the petitioner were subject to trial and that there was a prima facie case against him.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 817437 (HC-JHARKHAND)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 20-07-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Section 239 Cr.P.C.
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: ANIL KUMAR; NITISH SARTHI; CHANDANA KUMARI
• Assessee Lawyers: SURAJ SINGH; PARAMBIR BAJAJ
• Keywords: Criminal Revision; Electronic Filing; Income Tax Refund; Prima facie case
• Section: 239

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 1206 of 2022 Subhash Kumhar .... .. ... Petitioner(s) Versus The State of Jharkhand .. ... ...Opp. Party(s) ........... CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY ......... For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Suraj Singh, Advocate Mr. Parambir Singh Bajaj, Advocate For the CBI : Mr. Anil Kumar, ASGI Mr. Nitish Parth Sarthi, AC to ASGI Ms. Chandana Kumari, AC to ASGI …... 06/ 20.07.2023. The instant Cr. Revision is directed against the order dated 24.08.2022 passed by learned SDJM –cum- Special J. M., CBI, Dhanbad in connection with R.C. Case No.2(A)/ 2016 (D) whereby and whereunder petition filed under Section 239 Cr.P.C. has been rejected. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has no contact with the principal accused, Prashant Pandey, who as per the case of prosecution, was the master-mind to obtain illegal refunds from the Income Tax Department by filing false Income Tax returns. 3. It is submitted that there is no material to disclose that he was in contact with the main accused. It is alleged that the petitioner had signed the hard copy of the Income Tax Return which is not likely to be true in view of the fact that now Income Tax Return is filed online whereby the signature of the assesse is not required. The payment of tax had not been made in his account and the cheques were recovered and seized from the main accused and he had no knowledge about the said refund has been made or not. Such application for return has not been made by him. Petitioner had not received the refund of the account. 4. It is submitted that the amount of Rs.80,090/- in favour of Subhash Kumar (petitioner) was received at the residential address of Prashant Pandey. He had not received any amount and it has not been encashed. 4. Learned ASGI for the CBI has opposed the prayer. It is submitted that the petitioner was working as Foreman at Bhowra Colliery of BCCL, Dhanbad had been allotted PAN – ADPPK4789G. Based on his declaration and records of BCCL, he was issued Form-16 containing details of gross total income, deductions etc. for the Assessment Year 2015-16. He had paid Income Tax for the above period by getting the said deduction in the salary. He was not entitled for any income tax refund for Assessment year 2-015-16. Income Tax Returns were electronically filed for the Assessment Year 2014-15 and 2015-16 claiming undue Income Tax Refunds. The online income tax returns cannot be filed unless the person concerned shares his personal details like OTP received on his mobile when some other person had filed the same. In case where it is filed by the accused himself it can filed only by his e- mail ID. I find force in the argument on behalf of the petitioner that the pleas that have been raised are subject matter of trial. At this stage I find that there are sufficient materials to make out a prima facie case against the petitioner. I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the impugned order. Criminal Revision accordingly stands dismissed. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sandeep/ "