Clarification and ruling if any for 269 ss/ta
R Karthikeyan
(Querist) 27 July 2012
This query is : Resolved
Dear Experts
The case is 138 NI, I am the petitioner, the lower court has given conviction to the accused and he has moved to District Court for appeal. The arguments were over but due to apsence of typist or steno's PDJ has given 3 more extended date, during this time opponent counsel has filed the petition seeking 3 years IT returns from authority.
IT officer is one of the defence witness in lower court, verified the IT returns of 2008-09 & 09-10 thro the witness, but now they are demanding previous period of IT returns ie before the cause of action dated 28-4-2008 (cheque dated)ie 2006 to 2008. It is clears that the opponent needs to drag on the case.
Moreover the DJ also seeking the clarification for loan amount Rs.13 lakhs paid by cash (cheque amount is Rs.13 lakhs). I hope he has mentioned the IT act of 269SS/TA regarding the payment of more than Rs.20,000/- should be cheque.
I have clarified the above in lower court by submitting proof of SOA for drawing the amount of Rs.13 lakhs by cash on 27-4-2008 as per the requirement of borrower (previous day of cause of action 28-4-2008) from Bank etc.
Moreover, my auditor has confirmed that the referred IT act is meant for borrower, he has to prove in IT, the loan amount will be used for business or personal etc, according to that IT Act 271D (penalty clause) is applicable and Borrower is only clarify that the borrowing amount is whether white or black etc.,
Further he explained that various rulings are available only for the reduction of penalty burden to the borrowers etc.
Clarification needs from experts :
No.1
I wish to know whether any rulings are available for "not sustainable in according to Law" etc ie payment given by cash (Rs.20,000/- and above)?
If yes, kindly furnish the details of rulings or defends etc, pl.
No.2
Is there any other option to defend DJs queries ?
NO.3
How to oppose the non raising of IT returns issue in lower court ?
However opponents has verified the IT returns of 2008 & 2009 thro their defence witness by summoning IT officer, pertaining to cause of action period.
I am awaiting experts opinion pl.
regards
Karthikeyan r
Advocate Bhartesh goyal
(Expert) 04 October 2012
Bombay High court while deciding the Criminal Revision Petition Nos 72,73 and 74 of 2008 {DD 23.3.2010} held-Income Tax Act sec 269 ss Advance money not reflected to income tax returns-legality-held-sec 269ss of Income Tax Act only provides the penalty for not reflected the advance amount to income tax returns-but it does not say that if money is advanced in contravention of income tax act it would be unrecoverable.I think your query will be satisfied.
