TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 1218X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... compelling reasons, no judgment of acquittal can be interfered with after near about 30 years, more particularly in a case of this nature, where the offences with which the respondent accused was charged. In this case, the appellant was charged for offence u/s 276(C)/277 but offence u/s 276(C) of IT Act can be established by way of evidence that such persons willfully attempted in any manner whatsoever to evade any tax, penalty or interest chargeable or imposable under this Act. Similarly, offence U/S.277 of IT Act can be established by way of evidence that such persons made a statement in any verification under this Act or under any rule made there under or delivered an account of statement, which is false, and which he either knows or bel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the evidence on record and scrutinizing the impugned order in this case, this Court does not find any error apparent with the impugned order directing acquittal of respondent-accused warranting any interference by this Court. - CRA NO.18 of 1995 - - - Dated:- 25-4-2023 - JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY For Appellant : Mr. S.S. Mohapatra, Advocate For Union of India. For Respondent : Ms. A.K. Dei, Amicus Curiae G. Satapathy, J. 1. The judgment of acquittal of the Respondent passed on 07.08.1993 by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Special), Cuttack in 2. C.C. No. 64 of 1994 has been challenged in this appeal U/S. 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code). 2. Facts giving rise to this app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sand and Five Hundred ten) after allowing all admissible deductions, but the respondent-accused unsuccessfully impugned such assessment order in the appeal, which was turned down by the Appellate Authority for non-disclosure of the source of expenses for construction of house by her during the year under reference. On the above facts, a complaint was instituted by the ITO namely R.C. Sarangi in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Special), Cuttack, which was came to be registered as 2(c) C.C. No. 64 of 1990. In the course of trial, the respondent accused took a defence plea of non-maintainability of the complaint on the ground that she had neither suppressed the income nor willfully evaded to pay the income tax, but the le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d appreciating the evidence in proper perspective and, therefore, the present appeal lacks merit and liable to be dismissed. 4. Admittedly, this is an appeal against acquittal, which was recorded by the learned trial Court way back in the year 1993 and law is very well settled that in case of acquittal, the presumption of innocence of accused as provided under law, is reinforced and unless there appears miscarriage of justice and compelling reasons, no judgment of acquittal can be interfered with after near about 30 years, more particularly in a case of this nature, where the offences with which the respondent accused was charged. In this case, the appellant was charged for offence U/S. 276(C)/277 of the IT Act, but offence U/S. 276(C) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... firmed by P.W. 2 in his cross-examination that the penalty proceeding for the assessment year 1980- 1981 was dropped. An analysis of above evidence would go to reveal that the penalty proceeding was initiated against the Respondent-accused for concealment of the income, but such penalty proceeding was, however, dropped by the Income Tax Authority vide order under Ext.B. This Court does not find any error with the finding of the learned trial Court with regard to the offence U/S. 276(C). 6. On coming to the next charge for offence U/S. 277 of IT Act, it is alleged that the Respondent accused had furnished wrong and false information by verifying those returns as true knowing or having reason to believe that the information contained in he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd that the accused-respondent had furnished first return by showing her income as Rs. 8,860/-, but when she was asked, she filed subsequent return showing a loan taken by her from one Mr. Gyan Singh Sandhu and in fact, when there is a provision for filing revised returns which was admitted by P.W. 1 in his evidence and, therefore, adding Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 8,860/- in the second return would not certainly be considered as a false statement, which was verified by the respondent accused. 7. In such view of the matter, on analysis of the evidence on record and scrutinizing the impugned order in this case, this Court does not find any error apparent with the impugned order directing acquittal of respondent-accused warranting any interferenc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
