TMI Blog1996 (7) TMI 35X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner requiring him to appear in the court. The complainant is the Income-tax Officer and was himself the Assessing Officer of the petitioner. It was stated in the complaint that the petitioner was the assessee under the Act and derived income from manufacturing steel boxes, trunks, tools, etc., and that he filed his return of income for the assessment year 1988-89 on April 19, 1990, showing an income of Rs. 16,280. The assessment was completed on a total income of Rs. 1,55,700. The complainant then stated that during the assessment proceeding it was found that the books of account kept by the petitioner were not reliable and the receipts/vouchers, etc., could not be verified and as such Rs. 20,000 was enhanced in the " trading account " o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... maintenance and that of his family. The petitioner had shown Rs. 6,100 as withdrawals for this purpose. This addition as noted above is not the subject-matter of prosecution. In the appeal filed by the petitioner under the Act, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) while giving certain reliefs to the petitioner remitted the matter back to the Income-tax Officer for a fresh assessment in terms of the order in appeal. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) found that the addition of Rs. 20,000 in trading account was not reasonable and he accordingly gave relief of Rs. 10,000 on this score. However, he maintained the addition of Rs. 10,000 in the remuneration account on estimate basis, as according to him the addition was not excessive. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Officer. This has been struck down in appeal. It is impossible to believe that any offence can be said to have been made out on the basis of the estimate arrived at by the assessing authority. As a matter of fact, I do not find that in the complaint there are any ingredients of the offences under section 276C or 277 of the Act. The prosecution is only on the basis of guesswork. While the Income-tax Officer made an addition of Rs. 20,000 in the trading account on estimate basis, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) thought that the estimate was on the higher side and he reduced it to Rs. 10,000. It is difficult to comprehend any conviction based on such evidence. Merely mentioning the section in the complaint is not enough and that would ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entioned above. And as to how there is wilful attempt to evade any tax, etc., nothing has been said or specified. Then merely because the Income-tax Officer did not accept the correctness of the account of the assessee and made addition in two accounts on estimate basis which was not wholly accepted by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) could it be said that the assessee made a false statement in the verification in the return of income. The assessment also does not show as to how the estimate was arrived at. I do not think that in such a state of affairs, any offence under section 277 can be said to be made out. Then it is a moot question, when the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ordered deletion altogether of the addition of Rs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
