Jharkhand High Court Upholds Conviction For False Income Tax Refund Claim Based On Forged Documents

The Jharkhand High Court has upheld the conviction of an Eastern Coalfields Limited employee for claiming an income tax refund of ₹35,875 on the basis of forged documents. The court found no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the trial and appellate courts.

Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava dismissed the criminal revision filed by Sashi Bhusan Prasad Bhuian. The court directed him to surrender before the trial court within two months to undergo the remaining sentence.

The court observed, "From the impugned judgment, it is crystal clear that present petitioner has claimed on the basis of forged document, a refund of Rs. 35,875/- for which no valid explanation or reasons has been furnished by him."

Bhuian, an employee of Eastern Coalfields Limited, filed his income tax return for the assessment year 2003-04 claiming a refund of ₹35,875 after seeking a deduction for a housing loan. During an enquiry, the Income Tax Department found that the Form 16 and other documents submitted with the return were forged. The Bank of India also confirmed that no housing loan account existed in his name.

A complaint was subsequently filed against him under the Income Tax Act. The trial court convicted him, and the appellate court upheld the conviction.

Before the high court, Bhuian argued that he was not well educated and had requested an office clerk to file his income tax return. According to him, the clerk submitted the return without his instructions, and he had never claimed the refund. He also contended that the Income Tax Officer had not conducted any enquiry into his reply to the show-cause notice.

The Income Tax Department opposed the plea. It argued that illiteracy could not excuse a false refund claim supported by forged documents. The department also submitted that the petitioner had deliberately claimed a refund on the basis of a non-existent housing loan.

The high court found that the evidence on record showed the documents submitted with the return were forged and that no housing loan account existed in the petitioner's name.

It also noted that although he admitted signing the reply to the show-cause notice, he failed to offer any satisfactory explanation for claiming the refund.

The court also referred to the provision under the Income Tax Act that presumes the existence of a culpable mental state in prosecutions under the Act unless the accused proves otherwise.

It found that the petitioner had failed to rebut that presumption.

The court further observed, "It appears that the learned trial court has passed a reasoned order, which has been upheld by the learned appellate court. Therefore, I do not find any valid reasons for interfering in the impugned judgment and no legal substance in the point of argument raised by the petitioner."

Finding no error in the concurrent findings of the courts below, the high court dismissed the revision petition. It cancelled Bhuian's bail and directed him to surrender before the trial court within two months to undergo the remaining period of imprisonment.