9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (11) TMI 358X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y A. C. J. M. (Economic Offences), Indore, in Cr. Case No. 38 of 1986, the present appeal has been filed. 2. The short facts of the case are that a private complaint was filed by the appellant under section 276CC read with section 278B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on August 6, 1986, alleging that a complaint was filed by the Income-tax Officer, B-Ward, Itarsi. In the complaint it was alleged that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5, and served on July 17, 1985, but the notice was not complied with by the respondents. It was alleged that since there was default on the part of the respondents, therefore, the respondents are liable to be punished under section 276CC read with section 278B of the Income-tax Act. It was prayed that after enquiry and giving opportunity of hearing the respondents be punished. After framing of cha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondents be convicted. 4. Shri H. O. Soni, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that after due appreciation of evidence the learned court below has found that the explanation of delay in filing the return was satisfactory, therefore, no interference can be made by this court. It is also submitted that the impugned order passed by the court below is discretionary, therefore, in appeal th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the evaluation of the evidence made by the courts below while recording an order of acquittal does not suffer from any illegality or manifest error and the grounds on which the said order of acquittal is based are not unreasonable, then the High Court should not disturb the said order of acquittal. In the matter of Narayan v. UOI [1994] 208 ITR 82 (MP) ; [1994] JLJ 350, this court has held that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Jain was an old man and suffering from a number of diseases. It was further stated that he has been treated at Itarsi, Harda and Calcutta. Keeping in view the statement of Santosh Jain, the learned court below has held that there was sufficient ground for delay in filing the return in time. In the opinion of this court no illegality has been committed by the learned court below in acquitting the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
