9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (9) TMI 483X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iry of period of limitation. Subsection (2)(c) provides that the period of limitation shall be three years if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years. - Since 3 years has passed extended period of limitation cannot be applied. - Cr. Appeal No.29 of 2004. - - - Dated:- 30-9-2011 - Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. For the appellant : Mr. Vinay Kuthiala, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. M.M. Khanna, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vayur Gautam, Advocate. SURINDER SINGH, J. (Oral) : In the present appeal, acquittal of the respondent has been challenged by the Income Tax Department recorded in Case No.456-I-1995 decided on 29.3.2003, by the learned trial Court, f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the accused persons were acquitted on the ground that from the facts no case of concealed income is made out to evade the tax and also that the statement of CW3 S.S. Guleria, Income Tax Officer, who was deputed to conduct the enquiry did not produce any report of his finding so as to know the nature of the defence taken by the accused persons. Even the voucher of M/S. Khan Packages also did not find the light of the day. Thus in view of above, the non-existence of the said firm was not substantiated by leading cogent evidence. Further that the case was not made out in view of the judgment rendered in 183 ITR 69, CTT v. M/S. Prithipal Singh and Company. 5. Shri Vinay Kuthiala, learned Counsel for the appellant, vehemently submitted that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eir income on which they attempted to evade tax. Otherwise also, on merits, the case against the accused persons is not made out from the statements of CW2 Shri S.S. Rana, Deputy Commissioner and CW3 Sh. S.S. Rana Inspector of Income Tax. CW2 aforesaid stated that the matter was got enquired from CW3 S.S. Guleria with respect to the accused persons. Shri S.S. Guleria stated that he was orally directed to hold an enquiry and pursuant to which he visited Chandigarh. He could not produce any authenticated record with respect to his visit at Chandigarh nor he stated date when he visited Chandigarh. He also testified that on his visit he found the premises of the firm locked. Though, there was no sign board, but expressed his doubt that the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
