RANCHI, India, May 15 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on April 13:

1. Heard Mr. Tarun Kumar No.1, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. assisted by Mr. Anurag Vijay, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2.

2. The instant criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment dated 29.04.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-XIV, Dhanbad in Cr. Appeal No.41 of 2017, whereby and whereunder the appellate court has dismissed the appeal preferred against the order dated 25.02.2017 passed by learned Special Judge (Economic Offence), Dhanbad in C.O. Case No.44 of 2004 whereby and whereunder learned trial court has convicted the petitioner for the offence under section 277 of I.T. Act and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 2 years along with a fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation. However, learned appellate court has modified the aforesaid sentence to R.I. for 1 and half years and fine of Rs.2,500/- with default stipulation.

Factual Matrix:-

3. Factual matrix giving rise to this criminal revision is that the petitioner was employed with ECL and he had filed income tax return with TDS Certificate with his due signature on 27.09.2001 and claimed a refund of Rs.11,460/- due to excess deduction of tax. It is further alleged that the petitioner claimed a relief under Section 89(1) of I.T. Act in respect of repayment of Housing Loan, payment of interest and rebate under section 88 of I.T. Act, thereafter a refund of Rs.13,690/- was granted to him. However, the said TDS Certificate submitted for the refund was later found not genuine and the same was not issued by the employer. It is further alleged that no tax was deducted from the salary of the petitioner, resulting in recovery of the said refund amount along with interest. Thereafter, a show-cause letter was issued to the petitioner, in reply to which, he admitted his signature on verification and disclosed the name of one A.K. Chatterjee as an abettor and thereafter a prosecution was initiated against the petitioner. Hence, the complaint was filed.

Submission on behalf of petitioner:-

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner without touching the merits of the judgment has confined himself towards the quantum of sentence awarded to the petitioner by the learned trial court and upheld by learned appellate court. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was held guilty for misstatement of Income Tax Return in respect of loan towards purchase of house and the amount of Rs.13,690/- was saved as income tax, which has already been deposited. The petitioner has already undergone imprisonment for six months during trial of the case. The occurrence is of the assessment year, 2001- 2002 and now more than two decades have lapsed and thereafter the present petitioner was not found guilty for any other subsequent such activities. Therefore, sentence of 1 and half years awarded by the learned trial court and upheld by the learned appellate court may be altered/modified to the extent of imprisonment already undergone.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=eISc8sUCYnQFBVP%2BVeJCOJUWBLEAycsgJxReMxHfD5wtBbLVEDRVGc5Y4VggLmVa&caseno=Cr.Rev./836/2017&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010294972017&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.