9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 523X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there had been a Hindu undivided family whose karta was Ram Lal. Accused No. 2, Roshan Lal, is admittedly the son of Ram Lal. The allegation in the complaint is that the income-tax returns on behalf of the Hindu undivided family were not submitted well within the lime for the assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82 and, therefore, the offence punishable under section 276CC of the Income-tax Act was committed. It was also the case of the complainant, i.e., the Income-tax Department that Ram Lal who was the karta of the Hindu undivided family and his son, accused No.2, Roshan Lal, were responsible for the commission of the aforesaid offence. Roshan Lal was tagged with the responsibility under section 278C(2) of the Income-tax Act as the offence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en the offence was actually committed and because there was no iota of evidence on the record to show that on the date when the offence is alleged to have been committed the member of the Hindu undivided family, Roshan Lal ever connived or consented with the Hindu undivided family or precisely with the karta of the Hindu undivided family in the late filing of the returns, hence the provisions of section 278C(2) of the Act cannot be applied in the present case and no liability can be fastened for the late filing of the returns upon Roshan Lal, the applicant in this petition. 6. To the above, the learned standing counsel for the Income-tax Department argued that the karta of the Hindu undivided family being ill during the period when the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the filing of returns and the proceedings were undertaken by the Department. As the offence shall be deemed to have been committed on the date when the returns were required to be filed, hence the involvement of the applicant after this date cannot be sufficient to show that he consented or connived in the late filing of the returns. Mere participation of the applicant in the income-tax proceedings cannot be a ground to tag him with the commission of any offence under the Income-tax Act as the offence had already been committed. 9. Thus, I am of the view that no responsibility can be fastened upon the applicant with the aid of section 278C(2) of the Income-tax Act for the offence punishable under section 276CC of the Income-tax Act and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
