TMI Blog2005 (4) TMI 23X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quitted by the Sessions Judge, Sirsa, after accepting the appeal. I find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed - - - - - Dated:- 6-4-2005 - Judge(s): M. M. AGGARWAL. JUDGMENT M.M. Aggarwal J.-This is a criminal appeal filed by the Income-tax Department against the judgment of the Court of Sessions Judge, Sirsa, whereby the appeal filed by Shiv Kumar, the respondent, against the judgment of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa, dated August 12, 1988, convicting him for offence under sections 276C and 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, had been accepted and Shiv Kumar had been acquitted. Aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal of Shiv Kumar, the present appeal has been filed by the Income-tax Officer, Sirsa. Shiv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cealment. He accordingly accepted the appeal and acquitted Shiv Kumar. In this appeal, it was argued by counsel for the appellant that two refunds of market fee-one of the refunds, i.e., Rs. 1,28,001.45 had been duly accounted for in the profit and loss account but the second refund, i.e., the amount of Rs. 83,195.66 was not accounted for and was straightaway taken to the capital account. This will show that there was intentional wilful concealment and as such, Shiv Kumar, who had signed and verified the return, was liable for conviction for offence under sections 276C and 277 of the Income-tax Act. From the assessment order, exhibit PE, it would come out that when the explanation of the assessee was called by the Income-tax Officer, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ount instead of profit and loss account. Moreover, they had valid explanation in not adding the amount to the income feeling that it is a liability and might have to be refunded back to the Market Committee in view of the Ordinance issued by the Governor. The Income-tax Officer while adding the amount had observed that if the fee is refunded to the Market Committee then necessary deduction shall be allowed. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that there had been wilful attempt. As such, I hold that the case for offence under sections 276C and 277 of the Income-tax Act was not proved as against the respondent. He had been rightly acquitted by the Sessions Judge, Sirsa, after accepting the appeal. I find no merit in this appeal and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
