Income Tax Returns not Proof of Source of Income in Corruption Case: Allahabad HC upholds Conviction of Income Tax Officer

The Allahabad High Court upheld the conviction of an Income Tax Officer and observed that Income Tax Returns are not proof of Source of Income in a Corruption Case. The accused-appellant in the present matter is Om Prakash Vimal, who was an Income Tax Officer.

The trial court convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act for three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rupees forty thousand and under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for four years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rupees sixty thousand.

A written complaint was received in the office of the Superintendent of Police, CBI by Shailendra Kumar, Proprietorship of firm of M/s Kashyap Trading Company alleging that the said concern of the complainant was in the wholesale trading of food-grains and was audited regularly by the Chartered Accountant every year.

From the year 2002-03 as his firm was running into losses, the income tax was not payable and, therefore, was not paid. The complainant received a notice from the Income Tax Office in respect of the returns of the proprietorship firm of the complainant for Financial Years 2003-04 and 2004-05.

The accused-appellant threatened the complainant and demanded a bribe of Rupees sixty thousand and that in case he would not pay the bribe amount, heavy tax and penalty would be imposed on the complainant. Thereafter, on the request of the complainant, the accused-appellant told him to reduce the bribe amount to Rupees fifty thousand and directed the complainant to bring the bribe amount at his residence in making the tax liability of the complainant nil.

The Counsels for the accused-appellant submitted that that the alleged bribe amount was recovered from the drawer of the office table of the accused-appellant. The retiring room of the accused-appellant was vacant during lunch and the possibility of putting the bribe amount by the complainant was not a mere suspicion, but was a reality.

The Court of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh observed that “ Once the accused-appellant accepted the bribe amount and he kept it in the drawer of the office table, which was of the accused-appellant, the recovery from the drawer of the office table of the accused-appellant, is recovery from the accused-appellant himself.”

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates