Facts of the Case

The Income Tax Department initiated investigations after complaints were received regarding misuse of approved charitable institutions for generating false donation claims.

Search operations conducted under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act revealed a scheme involving issuance of donation cheques in favour of approved trusts, followed by diversion and withdrawal of the amounts through fictitious accounts.

In relation to the alleged donation of Rs. 10 lakhs, a cheque issued in favour of Hastimal Sancheti Memorial Trust was converted from a specially crossed cheque into a simple crossed cheque and subsequently endorsed to another entity, namely India Investment Co. The account of India Investment Co. was allegedly opened only for routing such transactions, and the entire amount was withdrawn through bearer cheques.

In another transaction involving Rs. 15 lakhs, a banker’s cheque initially intended for another company was altered and issued in favour of Poona Medical Foundation. The proceeds were credited to a bogus account allegedly opened without proper authorization. Withdrawals were made in cash under instructions of the accused persons.

The Income Tax Department alleged that these transactions constituted deliberate acts aimed at enabling evasion of income tax and creating false records. 

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the petition under Section 482 CrPC was maintainable despite the bar under Section 397(3) CrPC against a second revision petition.
  2. Whether the acts of the respondents amounted merely to preparation or constituted a willful attempt to evade tax under Section 276C(2) of the Income Tax Act.
  3. Whether the discharge orders passed by the lower courts were legally sustainable.
  4. Whether creation of false entries and artificial circumstances for tax evasion attracted prosecution under the Income Tax Act. 

Petitioner’s Arguments

The Income Tax Department argued that the respondents deliberately manipulated financial records and created false circumstances to evade tax liability.

It was submitted that although the amount of Rs. 25 lakhs was subsequently shown as recoverable in the balance sheet, such disclosure was merely a manipulation carried out after the Department had already unearthed the fraudulent activities through raids and searches.

The petitioner further contended that the findings of the revisional court treating the acts as mere preparation were legally unsustainable because the conduct of the respondents clearly fell within Explanation (i) and Explanation (iv) to Section 276C(2) of the Income Tax Act.

It was also argued that the respondents had already been summoned earlier and the High Court had previously observed that a prima facie case existed against them. 

Respondent’s Arguments

The respondents argued that the petition before the High Court was effectively a second revision petition barred under Section 397(3) CrPC.

It was further submitted that the alleged amount of Rs. 25 lakhs was shown in the income tax return as “recoverable” and not as donation. The respondents contended that since the assessment was completed and penalty proceedings under Section 271(c) were deleted, no criminal liability survived.

The respondents also argued that entries in books of account alone could not be sufficient to establish criminal liability under Section 34 of the Evidence Act.

Additionally, it was contended that the acts alleged by the Department amounted only to preparation and not an actual attempt to evade tax. 

Court Findings and Observations

The Delhi High Court held that although Section 397(3) CrPC bars a second revision petition, the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC can still be exercised in exceptional circumstances to prevent miscarriage of justice or abuse of process of law.

The Court observed that the facts revealed abnormal financial dealings, use of bogus accounts, false endorsements, and manipulated banking transactions, all of which prima facie demonstrated intentional conduct aimed at enabling tax evasion.

The Court further held that the respondents had created circumstances which could facilitate evasion of tax and had caused false entries to be made in books of accounts and other financial records.

The High Court clarified that Explanation (i) and Explanation (iv) to Section 276C(2) specifically include situations where false entries are created or artificial circumstances are caused to exist for enabling tax evasion.

The Court rejected the reasoning of the lower courts that the acts amounted merely to preparation. It held that such interpretation was contrary to the scheme and object of the Income Tax Act.

The Court also reiterated the settled principle that at the stage of framing of charge, detailed appreciation of evidence is not required and strong suspicion is sufficient for continuation of prosecution. 

Court Order

The Delhi High Court set aside the discharge orders passed by the lower courts and remanded the matter back to the trial court for proceeding in accordance with law.

The Court directed that the matter be assigned to the competent court and further ordered expeditious conclusion of trial. 

Important Clarification by the Court

The Court clarified that:

  • The Income Tax Act has overriding effect in matters concerning tax evasion offences.
  • Artificial arrangements and false financial entries intended to facilitate tax evasion are sufficient to attract prosecution under Section 276C(2).
  • At the stage of framing of charge, the court is only required to examine whether a strong prima facie suspicion exists.
  • Showing disputed amounts as “recoverable” after investigation had commenced did not absolve the respondents from criminal liability.

Sections Involved

  • Section 276C(2), Income Tax Act, 1961
  • Section 271(c), Income Tax Act, 1961
  • Section 132, Income Tax Act, 1961
  • Section 482 CrPC
  • Section 397(3) CrPC
  • Sections 227 & 228 CrPC
  • Section 34, Indian Evidence Act

Link to download the order - https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/case_number_pdf/2012:DHC:952/MLM10022012CRLMM5832009.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.