TMI Blog1995 (11) TMI 460X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State second respondent. None appeared for the first respondent-complainant. 2. The petitioners along with one more accused were prosecuted by the first respondent for offences under Sections 276-C, 277 and 278B of the Income-Tax Act. THE main allegation is that on 30th April, 1981 the original ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ging that the petitioners and accused No.5 have not disclosed this income of ₹ 22,87,000/- in their income-tax return for the year 1982-83, that they have attempted to evade tax and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 276C of the Income-tax Act. This is a gist of the offence alleged against the accused persons. In the meanwhile, the Income-tax Department took steps and l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e addition is deleted. It is, therefore, seen that on the appellate side, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has held that the amount in question has been wrongly included as the income of the petitioners and it was excluded from consideration. Now the present prosecution is launched on the same ground viz. that the accused persons have committed an offence by not disclosing this amount in their i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s liable to be quashed if on the civil side or on the judicial side the assessee is found to have not committed any default. 3. In the present case, the appellate Tribunal has clearly held that the amount in question does not belong to the accused and it cannot be included in the income of the accused persons. The prosecution on the same amount cannot be allowed to continue, otherwise it will b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
