TMI Blog1997 (7) TMI 37X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under the Act. The relevant assessment year is 1974-75. The assessee-firm filed a return showing income of Rs. 38,680. The Income-tax Officer assessed the income at Rs. 39,830. Accordingly, a revised return of income was filed by the assessee-firm showing income at Rs. 39,830. The firm was accordingly assessed vide order dated October 30, 1975. However, a survey was conducted on January 15, 1974, in the business premises of the assessee. On the basis of information collected in the survey, the Income-tax Officer came to the conclusion that the income of the assessee-firm for the relevant year comes to Rs. 65,974 being the unexplained money in terms of section 69A. He, therefore, issued notice under section 148 on March 23, 1979. In complia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 983 (annexure-C), dropped the penalty proceedings. The Income-tax Officer has filed the complaint before the court below against the applicants alleging commission of offence under sections 276C and 277 of the Act. It is alleged that the accused applicants have wilfully and knowingly made false verification in the return of income and also attempted to evade the tax. The learned A. C. J. M. after recording evidence before charge has framed charges for the aforesaid offences overruling the applicants' objection for dropping of the proceedings on the ground of penalty proceedings against them having been dropped. I have heard Shri S. C. Bagdia, senior counsel, with Shri Pankaj Bagdia, for the applicants, and Shri P. K. Saxena, senior coun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... am afraid the wind is also taken out of the sails of the prosecution case. In Uttam Chand's case [1982] 133 ITR 909, the Supreme Court in a case of criminal prosecution for filing false returns, where the Tribunal had exonerated the assessee, held : "In view of the finding recorded by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal that it was clear on the appraisal of the entire material on the record that Shrimati Janak Rani was a partner of the assessee-firm and that the firm was a genuine firm, we do not see how the assessee can be prosecuted for filing false returns. We, accordingly, allow this appeal and quash the prosecution." Following the ratio in Uttam Chand's case [1982] 133 ITR 909 (SC), the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Kanshi R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
