TMI Blog2008 (1) TMI 316X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d – held that no case was made out by appellant to show that there was willful default (in filing return) & HC would not interfere with an order of acquittal merely because yet another view was possible - 150 of 1995 - - - Dated:- 11-1-2008 - R. S. GARG J. R. L. Jain with Ms. Veena Mandlik for the appellant. H. S. Oberoi with M. L. Sharma for the respondent. JUDGMENT R. S. GARG ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, the return was not filed in time but was filed after a lapse of almost about 20 months. It is submitted that in both the returns the income was not shown correctly and, therefore, the accused has committed offences punishable under sections 276CC and 277 of the Act. It is also submitted that the court below took a hyper technical view of the matter and wrongly acquitted the accused. 3. S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t and the judgment of this court in the matter of Narayan v. Union of India [1994] 208 ITR 82, wherein this court has observed that if except the length of delay, there is nothing on the record and there does not appear to be any wilful default then the court would not be unjustified in acquitting the accused. In the said matter, the appellant-accused was convicted by the lower court but the H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
