http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  969 of 2000

PETITIONER: P. SOUNDARYA

RESPONDENT: INCOME TAX OFFICER, TAMIL NADU

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/04/2008

BENCH: P.P. Naolekar & Aftab Alam

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT O R D E R

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.969 OF 2000

1.      The facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellant is a sister of Kumari R.  Jayaprada. A search under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter  referred to as "the Act") was made of the premises of Kumari R. Jayaprada on  17.2.1983. In the course of the search, the statement of appellant was recorded  wherein she stated that the house bearing Door No.20, First Cross Street, Lake Area,  Nungambakkam, Madras was purchased on 22.11.1982 from one Smt. V. Seshamma.   The appellant stated that the said house was purchased for Rs.2,40,000/- by selling a  part of her jewelery and the jewelery of her mother Neelaveni and grandmother  Rajamma. On the same day, i.e., 17.2.1983, the office premises of the Chartered  Accountant of Kumari R. Jayaprada was also searched under Section 132 of the Act   and in that search a receipt dated 31.8.1982 signed by Smt. V. Seshamma,  acknowledging the receipt of advance amount towards the sale of the aforesaid house  to the appellant and her mother Smt. P. Neelaveni, for a sale consideration of  Rs.5,70,000/- was seized.   

2.      The appellant filed an application under Section 230-A(1) of the Act on 12.5.1983  for issuance of a certificate (N.O.C.) to her for settling the aforesaid property in the  name of her minor son, retaining her life interest in the said property and declaring  the sale consideration of the said property at Rs.2,40,000/-. As the real value of the  aforesaid premises is said to have been paid as Rs.5,70,000/- and the appellant has  declared the value of the said premises as Rs.2,40,000/- and, thus, there would be  evasion of income tax on the balance sale consideration of Rs.3,30,000/-.  The  Department started proceedings under Sections 193 IPC read with Section 136 of the  Act, Section 420 IPC read with Section 511 IPC and Sections 276-C(1) and 277 of  the Act.

3.      The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 420 read with Section 511  IPC, Section 193 IPC read with Section 136 of the Act and under Section 276-C(1) of  the Act and under Section 277 of the Act (2 counts) and sentenced her to suffer 3  months R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.300/- for offence under Section 420 read with  Section 511 IPC and to suffer 3 months R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.300/- for offence  under Section 193 IPC read with Section 136 of the Act and to suffer 6 months R.I.  and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for offence under Section 276-C(1) of the Act and to  suffer 6 months R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in each count for offences under  Section 277 of the Act with default clause.  We are informed that the appellant has  remained in jail for seven days. An appeal was filed before the Session Court and the  Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence  imposed on the appellant.  Thereafter, the appellant filed Criminal Revision Petition  before the High Court.  The High Court from the Assessment Order dated 24.3.1997  for the Assessment Year 1983-1984 has found that the price of the aforesaid property  was assessed at Rs.6,75,000/- a sum of Rs.1,56,000/- was paid by the appellant while  the balance amount of Rs.5,19,000/- was paid by Kumari Jayaprada and, therefore,  no offence was made out under Sections 276-C(1) and 277 (two counts) of the Act  against the appellant.  However, the High Court has confirmed the conviction and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

sentence imposed on the appellant under Sections 420 read with Section 511 IPC and  Section 193 IPC read with Section 136 of the Act and sentenced her to undergo three  months R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.300/- for the offences under Section 420 IPC read  with Section 511 IPC.  The appellant was further directed to suffer three months R.I.  and to pay a fine of Rs.300/- for the offences under Section 193 IPC read with  Section 136 of the Act.  The High Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the  appellant for the offences under Section 276-C(1) and Section 277 (2 counts) of the   Act.

4.      It has been contended by learned senior counsel for the appellant that the  proceedings were taken up against the appellant for filing an application under  Section 230-A(1) of the Act (since deleted) to obtain a certificate (NOC) wherein the  wrong valuation of the property was shown as Rs.2,40,000/-.  He has further  submitted that the appellant has been acquitted for the offences committed under the  Act but has been convicted for the offences which are not related to the Act.  Learned  counsel has further contended that since the matter pertains to the Assessment Year  1983-1984, and almost 25 years have elapsed from the date of submission of the  application for grant of certificate and at the relevant time she was aged about 25  years and now she is aged about 52 years and has children, a lenient view may be  taken in the matter.

5.      We have heard the submissions of the learned senior counsel for the appellant.   Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case that the appellant  has been acquitted under Sections 276-C(1) and 277 of the Act and that the matter  relates to the Assessment Year 1983-1984, in our view, the ends of justice will be sub- served if the appellant’s sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by her.  We order accordingly.  However, the appellant shall pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each on  both counts.   We, however, make it clear that this order will not be treated as a  precedent.   

6.      The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.