Offences and prosecution – Sections 276C, 277 and 278 – Wilful attempt to evade tax – False verification in return – Abetment of false returns – Condition precedent for application of sections 276C and 277 – Incriminating material or evidence of wilful attempt to evade tax must emanate from assessee – Evidence unearthed during search and survey operations of third persons – No evidence of connection between such material and assessee – Mere denial of allegation will not amount to incriminating evidence – Abetment denotes instigation to file false return – Complaint filed by Director of Income-tax – Not justified – Prosecution not valid

Offences and prosecution – Sections 276C, 277 and 278 – Wilful attempt to evade tax – False verification in return – Abetment of false returns – Condition precedent for application of sections 276C and 277 – Incriminating material or evidence of wilful attempt to evade tax must emanate from assessee – Evidence unearthed during search and survey operations of third persons – No evidence of connection between such material and assessee – Mere denial of allegation will not amount to incriminating evidence – Abetment denotes instigation to file false return – Complaint filed by Director of Income-tax – Not justified – Prosecution not valid

The assessees were husband and wife. For the A.Y. 2014-15, K filed his return on 29th July, 2014 declaring profit from the sale of immovable property as long-term capital gains. His wife filed her return for the A.Y. 2015-16 and disclosed long-term capital gains. Neither K nor his wife disclosed cash payments received as part of the consideration. These facts came to light in a survey u/s 133A carried out in the case of a company A Ltd. and other entities on 1st December, 2015 by the Income-tax Department and the Enforcement Directorate. In the course of the search several hard disks were retrieved by the Department and the ED. Further search and seizure were also conducted in the case of another company AE Ltd. in the year 2018 and certain notebooks were seized from the cashier of the purchaser company and their statements also recorded. A private complaint was filed by the Deputy Director of the Income-tax Department against K for the offences u/s 276C and 277. Similarly, another complaint was filed against his wife under sections 276C(1), 277 and 278.

After the Court had taken cognizance of the complaint, the assessees filed petitions to discharge them from the prosecution mainly on the ground that the documents alleged to have been seized during the search conducted in the two companies were inadmissible and the alleged cloning of the electronic records was not done by any experts and those documents also were not admissible due to non-compliance with section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Similarly, the person who was said to have given a statement as to the cash transaction had not been examined by the Court while taking cognizance. Hence, without any evidence in this regard there were no materials to proceed against the assessees. It was further submitted that the Deputy Director of the Income-tax Department was not a competent person to file a complaint for the false declaration. Only the A.O. before whom the returns were filed was competent to file any complaint for false returns or evidence. The trial court dismissed the petition.

‘i) Section 276C deals with wilful attempt to evade tax. In order to attract the provisions of section 276C the following ingredients must be available: the person (a) wilfully attempts to evade any tax; or (b) wilfully attempts to evade any penalty; or (c) wilfully attempts to evade any interest chargeable or imposable under this Act; or (d) under-reports his income. The Explanation further indicates that the expression “wilfully attempts” employed in the provision is an inclusive one. The Explanation makes it very clear that to maintain the prosecution, the false entry or statement containing the books of accounts or other documents ought to have been in the possession or control of such person and such person should have made any false entry or statement in such books of accounts or other documents or wilfully omitted or caused to be omitted any relevant entry or statement in such books of accounts or other documents, or caused any other circumstance to exist which will have the effect of enabling such person to evade any tax, penalty or interest chargeable or imposable under this Act.

ii) The essential ingredients of the sections make it clear that any statements or incriminating materials either should come from the accused or very strong material unearthed during search or survey is required to maintain prosecution u/s 276C or 277. The very Explanation provided u/s 276C makes it clear that incriminating materials and documents ought to have been seized from the accused. Unless strong materials are seized from the accused or any incriminating statement recorded from the accused, the prosecution has to wait till the finding recorded by the A.O. Reassessment or assessment order has to be passed only based on the materials seized during the search. On such assessment, when the A.O. comes to the conclusion that there is a wilful suppression to evade tax or under-reporting, etc., the complaint is maintainable. Though the offences u/s 276, 277 and 278 are distinct offences and the Deputy Director can launch the prosecution as per section 279, merely because the power was conferred to the Deputy Director to launch a complaint or sanction merely on the basis of some materials said to have been collected from third parties, the prosecution will not be maintainable.

iii) The intention of the Legislature is to prosecute only where concrete materials are unearthed during the search or survey. It is stated in Circular No. 24 of 2019 [2019] 417 ITR (St.) 5 that the prosecution u/s 276C(1) shall be launched only after the confirmation of the order imposing penalty by the Appellate Tribunal. The object of the statute discernible u/s 276 is that to maintain a complaint by the Deputy Director, the material seized or collected during search should unerringly point towards the accused.

iv) All the proceedings before the Income-tax Officer, particularly assessment proceedings, are deemed to be civil proceedings in terms of section 136. When all the proceedings before the A.O. under the Act are deemed to be judicial proceedings and the officer is deemed to be a civil court, if any false declaration or false return is filed before the A.O. such act of the assessee is certainly punishable u/s 193 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. In such a case the fact that the statement given by the assessee during the assessment proceedings was false has to be recorded by the officer concerned. Without such a finding recorded, the prosecution cannot be launched merely on the basis of some statements said to have been recorded from third parties.

v) The Income-tax search proceedings have also been held to be judicial proceedings and such authority is deemed to be a judicial authority within the meaning of sections 193 and 196 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Even the raiding officer is deemed to be a civil court and the proceedings before him are judicial proceedings and if any offence is committed before such authority, the complaint can be lodged only following the procedure u/s 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

vi) The entire reading of the complaint made it clear that the assessees never incriminated themselves in the statements recorded by the raiding officers at any point of time. The search was said to have been carried out in AE Ltd., the so-called purchaser of the property. The complaint was silent about whether the assessee, i. e., the accused, were either directors or had control over the firms. Mere denial of the prosecution version could not by any stretch of imagination be construed as incriminating evidence.

vii) Admittedly, returns were filed before the A.O. by the assessees and the verification was also done by them while filing the returns. Whether such verification was false or not had to be decided by the A.O. before whom such verification was filed. Neither the false return nor any false statement or verification was done before the Deputy Director of Income-tax to invoke section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Prosecution was launched for the alleged offence under sections 276C and 277. There must be material to show that there was wilful attempt to evade tax, penalty, interest or under-report, etc. Merely because search had been conducted and some third parties’ statements were recorded, and further they had also not been examined, and there was no finding recorded by the A.O. as to a wilful attempt to evade tax or filing of false verification, the complaint filed by the Deputy Director was not maintainable.

viii) Showing of ignorance by one of the assessees by maintaining that only her husband was aware of the return… such conduct could not be construed as abetment to attract the offence u/s 278. The prosecution of K and his wife was not sustainable.’