Offences and prosecution: – (a) Wilful attempt to evade tax – False verification – Delayed payment of tax does not amount to tax evasion – Misstatement must be deliberate – Burden of proof on Revenue to prove that misstatement was deliberately made to evade tax – Assessee forced to upload return mentioning tax had been paid because of defect in software system set up by Income-tax Department – No offence committed u/s 276C or 277; (b) Company – Liability of directors – All directors cannot be proceeded against automatically – Specific allegation against specific directors necessary; and (c) Cognizance of offences – Accused outside jurisdiction of magistrate – Effect of section 204 of CrPC

Offences and prosecution: – (a) Wilful attempt to evade tax – False verification – Delayed payment of tax does not amount to tax evasion – Misstatement must be deliberate – Burden of proof on Revenue to prove that misstatement was deliberately made to evade tax – Assessee forced to upload return mentioning tax had been paid because of defect in software system set up by Income-tax Department – No offence committed u/s 276C or 277; (b) Company – Liability of directors – All directors cannot be proceeded against automatically – Specific allegation against specific directors necessary; and (c) Cognizance of offences – Accused outside jurisdiction of magistrate – Effect of section 204 of CrPC

Proceedings were initiated by the Income-tax Department against the petitioner company and its directors for offences u/s 276C(2) and 277. Summons were issued.

The Karnataka High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner company and directors and held as under:

‘i) All the directors of a company cannot be automatically prosecuted for any violation of the Act. There have to be specific allegations made against each of the directors intended to be prosecuted and such allegations should amount to an offence and satisfy the requirement of that particular provision under which the prosecution is sought to be initiated, more so when the prosecution is initiated by the Income-tax Department which has all the requisite material in its possession and a preliminary investigation has been concluded by the Department before filing of the criminal complaint.

ii) The court taking cognizance of an offence is required to apply its mind to the allegations made and the applicable statute and thereafter pass a reasoned order in writing taking cognizance. It should be apparent from a reading of the order of cognizance that the requirement of “sufficient grounds for proceedings” in terms of section 204 of the Code has been complied with. At the time of taking cognizance, there must be a proper application of judicial mind to the materials before the court either oral or documentary, as well as any other information that might have been submitted or made available to the court. The test that is required to be applied by the court while taking cognizance is as to whether on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint, or on a police report, or on information furnished by a person other than a police officer, there is a case made out for initiation of criminal proceedings. For this purpose, there is an assessment of the allegations required to be made applying the law to the facts and thereby arriving at a conclusion by a process of reasoning that cognizance is required to be taken. An order of cognizance cannot be abridged, formatted or formulaic. The order has to make out that there is a judicial application of mind, since without such application the same may result in the initiation of criminal proceedings when it was not required to be so done.

iii) The order of taking cognizance is a safeguard in-built in the criminal justice system so as to avoid malicious prosecution and frivolous complaints. When a complaint or a police report or information by a person other than police officer is placed before the court, the judicial officer must apply judicious mind coupled with discretion which is not to be exercised in an arbitrary, capricious, whimsical, fanciful or casual way.

iv) Cognizance of any offence alleged being one of commission or omission attracting penal statutes can be taken only if the allegations made fulfil the basic requirement of the penal provision. At this point, it is not required for the court taking cognizance to ascertain the truth or veracity of the allegation but only to appreciate if the allegations taken at face value, would amount to the offence complained of or not. If yes, cognizance could be taken, if no, taking cognizance would be refused. The only manner of ascertaining this is by the manner of recordal made by the court in the order taking cognizance. The order passed by the court taking cognizance should therefore reflect such application of mind to the factual situation. Mere reference to the provisions in respect of which offences are alleged to have been committed would not be in compliance with the requirement of the statute when there are multiple accused; the order is required to disclose the application of mind by the court taking cognizance as regards each accused.

v) Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides for postponement of issue of process. Section 202 of the Code provides for safeguard in relation to persons not residing within the jurisdiction of a magistrate, not to be called or summoned by the court unless the magistrate were to come to a conclusion that their presence is necessary and only thereafter issue process against the accused. The protection u/s 202(2) of the Code is provided so as to not inconvenience an accused to travel from outside the jurisdiction of the court taking cognizance to attend to the matter in that court. Therefore, before issuing summons to an accused residing outside the jurisdiction, there has to be application of mind by the court issuing summons and after conducting an inquiry u/s 202(2) of the Code the court issuing summons has to come to a conclusion that such summons are required to be issued to an accused residing outside its jurisdiction.

vi) In the event of an accused being an individual, if the accused has temporary residence within the jurisdiction of the magistrate, again merely because he does not have a permanent residence, there is no inquiry which is required to be conducted u/s 202 of the Code. It would, however, be required for the magistrate in the event of issuance of summons or process to record why the inquiry u/s 202 of the Code is not being held. When the accused has no presence within the jurisdiction of the magistrate where the offence has been committed, then it would be mandatory for an inquiry u/s 202 of the Code to be held.

vii) Income-tax had been paid and the authorities had received the necessary taxes. If at all, for the delay, there could be an interest component which could have been levied. The delayed payment of Income-tax would not amount to evasion of tax, so long as there was payment of tax, more so for the reason that in the returns filed there was an acknowledgement of tax due to be paid.

viii) The 26 AS returns indicated payment of substantial amount of money due to tax deduction at source. Apart from that, the assessee-company had also made several payments on account of the Income-tax dues. But on account of non-availability of funds, the entire amount could not be paid before the returns were to be uploaded, more particularly since the last date of filing was 30th September, 2013 for A.Y. 2013-14 and 30th September, 2014 for A.Y. 2014-15. The assessee had been forced to upload the returns by mentioning that the entire amount had been paid since without doing so the returns would not have been accepted by the software system set up by the Income-tax Department. Therefore, the statement made had been forced upon the assessee by the Income-tax Department and could not be said to be a misstatement within the meaning and definition thereof u/s 277. There was no wilful misstatement by the assessee in the proceedings.

ix) That the order passed by the magistrate did not indicate any consideration by the magistrate, as required u/s 202. It could be ex facie seen that the order of the magistrate did not satisfy the requirement of arriving at a prima facie conclusion to take cognizance and issue process, let alone to the accused residing outside the jurisdiction of the magistrate. The order taking cognizance dated 29th March, 2016 in both matters was not in compliance with the requirement of section 191(1)(a) of the Code and further did not indicate that the procedure u/s 204 of the Code had been followed. The order dated 29th March, 2016 taking cognizance was not in compliance with applicable law and therefore was not valid.

x) That admittedly accused No. 6 resided beyond the jurisdiction of the trial court. It could be seen from the order dated 29th March, 2016 that there was no postponement by the magistrate, but as soon as the magistrate received a complaint he had issued process to accused No. 6 who was resident outside the jurisdiction of the magistrate. The magistrate could not have issued summons to petitioner No. 6 without following the requirements and without conducting an inquiry u/s 202 of the Code.

xi) The prosecution initiated by the respondent against the petitioners was misconceived and not sustainable.’