“The Defendant / Accused leading evidence against himself ”

Whereas a debt payable by a person has a direct bearing in his Balance Sheet, inasmuch as if he comes to the conclusion that, he no longer is supposed to pay that debt, than, he writes off that debt, and that unpaid debt is deemed as his income and his increased income will entail increased tax liability. And therefore, if a person claims in his Balance sheet that a certain debt is payable by him, he thereby does not treat that unpaid debt as his income and is not obliged to pay tax on that deferred deemed income.

And whereas, if a Suit / case is filed in the court of law for the recovery of money / dishonoured cheque, against a person, and if he claims in the court of law that no debt is payable by him although he may have claimed in his Balance sheet that the suit debt is payable by him;

And whereas if you have obtained information under R.T.I. from the IT authorities that the Defendant / Accused has in fact claimed in his Balance sheet that the suit debt is payable by him; than it’s a positive acknowledgement of legally payable debt, notwithstanding the debt may be time barred.

In the circumstances, an application may be made to the court apprising about such acknowledgement of debt by the Defendant / Accused and thereby requesting the court to treat the denial of the Defendant / Accused as “misleading the court of law amounting to perjury” and the Hon’ble Court may pass the orders in the light of this positive acknowledgment of fact by the Defendant / Accused. In fact, it may be termed as “the Defendant / Accused leading evidence against himself ”.

Also, whereas the Defendant / Accused has claimed in his Balance Sheet as aforesaid, and files his/its reply in the court of law denying any debt payable, than, a complaint may be made to the IT Dept alleging that “the said person (Defendant/Accused) so as to avoid tax liability, has claimed in his Balance Sheet as aforesaid, although the person files an Affidavit in the court of law that no debt is legally payable. I believe that the penalty is huge for evading tax liability.

However, if the info is not available under RTI, than, a complaint may be made to the IT Dept, thereby informing the IT Dept that a case has been filed in the Court of law against the said person (Defendant/Accused), thereby requesting the IT Dept to verify if the Defendant / Accused has claimed in his Balance Sheet so submitted before it, in respect of the debt which is in question in that case before the court of law. Moreover, in cases where Pvt/ pubic limited companies are involved, the relevant info may be sought from Registrar of Companies.

Also, I suggest, in every case filed for the recovery of money / dishonoured cheque, the IT Dept may be added to the list of witnesses, and praying the Court to direct the IT Dept to furnish relevant info to the Hon’ble Court as to whether the Defendant / Accused has claimed in his Balance Sheet in respect of the debt which is directly under the scrutiny of the Court, thereby substantially and significantly assisting the Hon’ble court in reaching the bottom of the truth of the case. Similarly, in cases where Pvt/ pubic limited companies are involved, the Registrar of Companies may be made as one of the witnesses.

Similarly, if a false case is filed for the recovery of a debt which is not actually payable, the Defendant/Accused may ask the Court of law to obtain info from the IT Dept to furnish details, as if the Plaintiff / Complainant has claimed any debt receivables in his Accounts so submitted before the IT authorities, or in the alternative may obtain the relevant info under RTI as if the Plaintiff / Complainant has in fact claimed any receivables in his accounts so submitted to the IT authorities.


In the premise, I come to believe that, every guilty person, some way or the other, always leave his pug mark, thereby lead good “evidence against himself”. I believe, one has to explore unseen links attched to the alleged transaction.




Sandeep Jalan
Advocate
Mumbai.