9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the order of acquittal of accused Nos. 1 and 2 by the trial court is liable to be set aside. 2. Whether the order of acquittal passed by the lower appellate court, acquitting the third accused, is liable to be set aside. Detailed Analysis: 1. Acquittal of Accused Nos. 1 and 2: The first accused was the owner of a property and sold it after obtaining a clearance certificate under section 230A of the Income-tax Act. The second accused, her husband, was a joint executant of the sale deed. The prosecution alleged that they provided a false address in the application to evade capital gains tax. The trial court acquitted them of all charges, and the Department appealed against this acquittal. The court noted that the second accused had no legal interest in the property and was not the owner. Therefore, any false address provided by him did not benefit him directly, and he could not be held liable for the alleged offences. The court further observed that the prosecution did not produce any rules or evidence to show that only the Income-tax Officer having jurisdiction over the permanent address could take action for collecting income-tax on capital gains. The court concluded that the Department's case was based on shaky grounds and that the offences against accused Nos. 1 and 2 were not made out. Thus, the order of acquittal was confirmed. 2. Acquittal of the Third Accused: The third accused, an income-tax practitioner, was alleged to have filled up false particulars in the clearance certificate and abetted accused Nos. 1 and 2 in evading capital gains tax. The trial court convicted him under section 278 of the Income-tax Act, but the lower appellate court acquitted him. The Department appealed against this acquittal. The court noted that the third accused was acquitted of the charge under section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, and no appeal was preferred by the Department against this acquittal. The court emphasized that a statement made by a co-accused cannot be treated as substantial evidence against another accused. The prosecution failed to provide sufficient material to show that the third accused filled up the false address particulars. The court also pointed out that the prosecution did not take steps to have the handwriting examined by an expert. Therefore, the court concluded that the evidence was insufficient to hold the third accused guilty under section 278 of the Income-tax Act. The order of acquittal by the lower appellate court was confirmed. Conclusion: The court dismissed both criminal appeals, confirming the order of acquittal of accused Nos. 1 to 3. The court found that the prosecution failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the charges against the accused, and the Department's case was based on weak grounds.
|
