TMI Blog1987 (8) TMI 68X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncome-tax Officer, Bhiwani (respondent No. 3), took into possession certain documents from the Station House Officer, Dadri, and alleged that the same belonged to the petitioners. He issued notices to the petitioners under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as " the Act "), and sought clarification from them. According to the Income-tax Officer, the petitioners had purchased 1,376 bags of gram dal which were not accounted for in the books of petitioner No. 4. The Income-tax Officer ultimately completed the assessment under section 143(3) on February 22, 1973, and assessed the income of respondent No. 4 at Rs. 55,022. On appeal, the said assessment order was set aside and the case was remanded for fresh decis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same is pending. A complaint dated January 23, 1980, has been filed by the Incometax Officer against the petitioners under section 277 of the Act read with sections 191/193/34 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegations that in the assessment year 1971-72, the petitioner had intentionally, dishonestly and fraudulently made false entries in the books of account with a deliberate and mala fide intention of concealing their income in order to cause wrongful loss to the Department and had signed and verified the return of income which they knew to be false and not true. Aggrieved, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of sections 277, 278 and 279 of the Act and the validity of the cri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to the petitioners has been passed or may be passed by the departmental authorities that surely can be produced by them before the learned trial Magistrate and there is no doubt that due weight and consideration shall be given to that order. No argument has been raised to assail the constitutional validity of 4 section 277 of the Act and rightly so, because the constitutional validity of section 52, a similar provision in the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, has been upheld by the Supreme Court in T. S. Baliah v. T. S. Rangachari, ITO [1969] 72 ITR 787. Those very reasons apply to uphold the constitutional validity of the provisions of sections 278 and 279 of the Act. In this view of the matter, there is no merit in this writ petition and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
