9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (1) TMI 50X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Abohar, which is a registered firm. It was further alleged that the said firm filed a return along with annexures, declaring the income of Rs. 1,28,050 on August 12,1986, and the verification was signed by Dewan Chand Kamra. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Income-tax Officer collected information regarding purchase of demand drafts by M/s. Kamra Trading Co. from the Central Bank of India, Abohar, in the name of self and its supplier (for payment to them) without entering the same in its account books, which are detailed as under: -------------------------------------------------------- Sl. Date of D.D.No. Amount of Date in which No. purchase draft the demand draft of demand was actually &nbs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shable under sections 276C and 277 read with section 278B of the Act. Since Dewan Chand, respondent No.2, was the managing partner and the remaining respondents Nos.3 to 5 were in charge and responsible for the firm for conducting the business of the firm in day-to-day working, they were all liable. The complaint was filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, who, vide his order dated March 31,1990, after finding sufficient grounds for proceedings against the respondents, summoned them under sections 276C, 277 read with section 278B of the Act. During the pendency of the proceedings in the trial court, Smt. Har Devi and Smt. Parkash Wati died and as such, their names were struck off from the array of the respondents. The appellants examined six witnesses in pre-charge evidence. After the conclusion of pre-charge evidence and hearing counsel for the parties, the respondents were charged under sections 276C and 277 read with section 278B of the Act vide order dated November 22, 1994, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. After framing of the charge, the witnesses examined in pre-charge evidence, were produced and further cross-examined by the respondents. Af ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct that Smt. Parkash Wati and Smt. Har Devi, who were partners of M/s. Kamra Trading Co., Abohar, have died. The surviving partners are Dewan Chand Kamra and Smt. Sangeeta Kamra. Dewan Chand Kamra was the managing director of the company known as M/s. Kamra Trading Co., Abohar, while Sangeeta Kamra is his daughter-in-law. There is no evidence on the file that Smt. Sangeeta Kamra is connected with the day-to-day working of the company. She had not signed the return filed for the assessment year 1986-87. There is no evidence on the file that she had ever signed any document relating to the business of the company. Dewan Chand Kamra had admitted in his statement, exhibit PK, regarding the purchase of drafts. Otherwise also, the purchase of drafts is proved from the statement of PW-1 R.N. Swami, branch manager. He produced vouchers exhibits PA to PF and stated that through these vouchers, M/s. Kamra Trading Co., Abohar, had purchased demand drafts of Rs. 50,000 on March 15,1986 bearing No. 941685, on March 22,1986, another draft bearing No. 941764 of Rs. 15,000 and on March 25,1986 three drafts bearing Nos. 941802 to 941804 amounting to Rs. 20,000 each and another draft bearing No. 941 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stody and I am of the considered view that the accused Dewan Chand had filed wrong return which to his knowledge was false and he is certainly proved to have committed the offence for which he was charge-sheeted. . ." He was simply let off in view of his age as he was aged about more than 80 years. Counsel for the appellant contended that the instructions and guidelines given to the Income-tax Department relating to the prosecution of persons above a certain age could not override the specific provisions of the Act. Thus, he contended that the acquittal of Dewan Chand, the respondent, on the ground that he was aged more than 80 years, was not tenable as the guidelines could not override the statute, i.e., the specific provisions of the Act. For this contention, he has placed reliance upon an authority of the Madras High Court reported in Madura Chit and Investments (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [1994] 208 ITR 228, which supported the above contention of learned counsel for the appellant. He further contended that if there was evasion of income-tax by a company, then the Act provided both substantive sentence as well as fine and since the company was a juristic person, it could not be made to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
