TMI Blog1979 (10) TMI 59X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... basis of which the provisional assessment under s. 141 of the I.T. Act, 1961, was made. The total income shown therein was Rs. 44,457. Since the return was filed after the due date, the assessee-firm was liable for a penalty under s. 271(1)(a) of the I.T. Act. Regular assessment was completed on March 31,1969, and a demand notice was issued. The prosecution further alleged that the appellant realising his mistake and in order to escape the liability of a penalty got the return, which was filed by him on March 3, 1965, surreptitiously removed from the file some time in between March 3, 1965, and March 31, 1969, and got another return, purported to have been signed by him on June 30, 1964, substituted in place of the return filed on March 3, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proved the date on it to be in the handwriting of the appellant. Assuming all the allegations to be true, for the purpose of disposing of this appeal, the prosecution has still to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the signature oh the document (Ex. 2) was that of the appellant. In my view, they have singularly failed to achieve that end. It is true that three officers of the income-tax department have proved the signature of the appellant on Ex. 2, but, in my view, since the only circumstance appearing against this appellant is the signature, some independent witness like an expert or some one unconnected with the income-tax department, who was in full know of the waiting of the appellant, should have been examined. P.W. 1 while proving th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at even if the signature can be said to have been properly proved which does not seem to have been done, it was the only circumstances against the appellant and still the prosecution did not bring it to his notice in his examination under s. 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The trial court has not put any specific question to the appellant to bring to his notice the fact that he had signed the return (Ex. 2) and that his signature had been proved as Exs. 1 and 1/1. The only question put to him was that he got a substituted return filed which bore his signature and the date June 30, 1964, had been written by him. The signature itself was not specifically brought to his notice. In his reply, the appellant denied that he had filed any re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
