The main legal point established is that the court rejected the petitioner's contention of clerical mistake and lack of mens rea, emphasizing that the mistake was not rectified promptly and was not merely a clerical error.

SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J.

1. By way of the present Revision petition filed under Section 397 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C.) the petitioner seeks quashing of judgment dated 24.06.2014 and order of sentence dated 25.06.2014 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (hereinafter referred as ACMM), Tis Hazari Courts, whereby the learned ACMM held the petitioner guilty under Section 266C/277 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred IT).

2. The brief facts of the present case are that the complainant/Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, filed a complaint against the petitioner alleging that the false depreciation on land amounting to Rs. 31,80,000 was claimed in the company’s balance-sheet in the assessment year 2007-2008 shown under the head ‘property’ along with the depreciation on building and as per IT Act, land is exempted from taxation. After the assessment done by the Assessing Officer, penalty of Rs. 32,11,164/- was imposed for concealment. An appeal was preferred against this before the learned CIT (A), who deleted the imposed penalty by considering the same as sheer mistake on part of the petitioner. Then the department filed an appeal before learned ITAT, who reinstated the penalty and the same was challenged by the accused in this court, which was dismissed thereafter. Consequently, the complaint was filed by the respondent before learned ACMM wherein vide order 25.06.2014, the respondent no. 3 was acquitted but the company/respondent no. 1 was found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 266C and 277 of the IT Act and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 15,000/- each i.e. Rs. 30,000/-. Hence, the present petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the mistake committed in the accounts book for the assessment year 2007-2008 was a sheer mistake made by the accounts clerk of the company and the same was not in the knowledge of the petitioner, Director or its Chartered Accountants; that while assessment of the accounts of the company by the Chartered Accountants in the subsequent year, they came to know about the mistake that had occurred; that the same was brought to the knowledge of the Assessing Officer vide letter dated 08.12.2009, during assessment and much before the scrutiny; that the petitioner company came to know about the alleged mistake much before it could be detected by the Assessing Officer; that the mistake in the balance sheet was suo moto rectified in the balance sheet of the subsequent year by the company’s Chartered Accountant; that no notice was received by the petitioner before sending of letter dated 08.12.2009; that there is absence of mens rea in committing the said act; that the doctrine of vicarious liability is not applicable for prosecution and the impugned order is not a speaking order, therefore, needs to be set aside.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the order passed by the learned ACMM is a reasoned order and does not suffer from any infirmity.

5. The submissions made by the both the parties have been heard and the records have been perused.

6. After giving careful consideration to the entire facts, it is seen that the main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the fact with regard to charging of depreciation on the land along with the building and the same shown under a common head in the balance sheet of the assessment year 2007-2008 as ‘property’ is a mere clerical mistake and the same was suo moto corrected by the company in the balance sheet of subsequent year, i.e. 2008-2009 and was informed about it to the Assessment Officer (AO) vide letter dated 08.12.2009. Perusal of the record shows that after the assessment of the Balance Sheet of the year 2007-2008 by the assessing Officer, two order sheet entry dated 04.09.2009 and 23.11.2009 was made by the AO whereby the AO had asked the petitioner to explain the claim of depreciation on building