9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Conviction under section 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and sections 193 and 196 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Analysis: The judgment by Justice G. Radhakrishna Rao pertains to the conviction of the accused for offenses under section 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and sections 193 and 196 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Special Judge for Economic Offences, Hyderabad, initially convicted the accused and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for six months under section 277 of the Income-tax Act and also under sections 193 and 196 of the Indian Penal Code, along with fines. The lower appellate court later acquitted the accused of charges under sections 193 and 196 but upheld the conviction under section 277 of the Income-tax Act. The accused then filed a revision against this decision. The case against the accused revolved around his alleged non-disclosure of income derived from certain firms, particularly the Deccan Bharat Khandasari Factory. Despite the petitioner's argument that there was no column in the return to show investments, the Income-tax Department contended that the petitioner deliberately suppressed income and investments related to the factory. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's order and the petitioner's sworn statement further supported the claim of deliberate suppression of income, leading to the final assessment of a significantly higher income than initially declared. The court found that the accused's active involvement in the affairs of the factory, coupled with the suppression of income and contradictory statements, demonstrated his knowledge and deliberate intent to conceal facts. Despite the lower appellate court's acquittal on charges under sections 193 and 196 of the Indian Penal Code, the court upheld the conviction under section 277 of the Income-tax Act, emphasizing the deliberate suppression of income and investments. The accused was sentenced to imprisonment and a fine under section 277. In conclusion, the court dismissed the revision and confirmed the conviction under section 277 of the Income-tax Act, emphasizing the deliberate suppression of income and investments by the accused. The judgment highlights the importance of accurate income disclosure and the consequences of deliberate non-disclosure under tax laws.
|
