9911796707
TMI Blog1973 (11) TMI 9X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ritten in the year 1965. Then he wrote to the Commercial Tax Officers and got from them particulars about the various books produced by the petitioners before them. We are now concerned, in this case with the books for the periods from January 10, 1961, to August 28, 1962 and August 28, 1962, to August, 1963. Exhibit P-49 is the day book and exhibit P-50 is the ledger for the first period. Exhibit P-7 is the day book and exhibit P-8 is the ledger for the second period. P.W. 1 issued a notice under section 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, viz, exhibit P-19, calling on the petitioners to produce the account books for the year 1963-64. The books were produced on March 15, 1966. On that he recorded a sworn statement, exhibit P-22, from the second petitioner, the managing director. He asked him as to whether he had got any other books and the answer was that he had no other books. Thereupon exhibit P-23 notice was issued by him calling upon him to produce the books signed by the Commercial Tax Officers. By exhibit P-27, the petitioners stated that they have produced all the books with them and that they had no other books. Thereupon a complaint for an offence under section 276(1)(c) of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceived this notice, appeared before the officer and produced the day books exhibits P-49, P-7 and P-16 and the corresponding ledgers, exhibits P-50, P-8 and P-17. Thereupon P.W. 1 recorded the statement, exhibit P-2, from him (vide page 53 of volume 3). He, in this statement, stated that the account books produced by him were the only books maintained by him and available with him. Thereupon P.W. 1 asked him as to whether he had brought with him and produced before him all the day books and ledgers relating to their business from the commencement till the date March 31, 1966. Petitioner No. 2 answered in the affirmative stating that exhibits P-49, P-50, P-7, P-16 and P-18 are the only books which he had. Then P.W. 1 specifically questioned him as to whether he had with him any other chitta and account books for the period from November 10, 1961, to March 31, 1966. Petitioner No. 2 asserted positively that he had no other books. He further stated that he had given all the books. On the same day P.W. 1 issued the notice, exhibit P-23 (see volume 3, page 57) to petitioner No. 2, calling upon him to produce certain books of accounts that were produced before the Commercial Tax Officers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an interference in revision. Even otherwise, the prosecution has proved beyond doubt that the petitioners had with them other account books and that they did not produce those account books. to P.W. 1 when he demanded them under section 142, of the Income-tax Act. In other words, there is intrinsic evidence in the case to show that such account books, in fact, existed. The petitioner commenced the business on November 10, 1961. We are concerned with two periods. The first period is for the year from April 1, 1961 to March 31, 1962. The second period is for the year commenting from April 1, 1962, to March 31, 1963. P. W. 5, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, had checked the account books, i.e., the day book and the ledger of this firm on September 25,1962. He has signed on page 13 of the day book and page 73 of the ledger. Exhibit P-39 is the notes which evidence this scrutiny thus made by him (vide page 94, volume 3). In page 13 of the day books he has signed. In the ledger, he has signed on page 73. This was on September 25, 1962, (vide page 41). P.W. 5 has spoken to these facts and his evidence, which stands corroborated with the contemporaneous records, viz., exhibits P-39 to P- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne. Thus, the prosecution has proved beyond doubt that the petitioners had with them other account books, admittedly signed by the Commercial Tax Officers, and when a notice under section 142(1) of the Income-tax Act was issued and when a further notice specifically calling for those books were issued, they did not produce those books, but made a false statement to the effect that they had no other books. Exhibit P-22 is the sworn statement recorded by P. W. 1 from petitioner No. 2. He had questioned him as below: "Have you got any other books? Answer: I have no other books." Then P. W. 1 issued a notice under section 142(1) to produce the books signed by the Commercial Tax Officers. By exhibit P-27, petitioner No. 2 stated that he had produced all the books he had and that he had no other books. Obviously, the statement thus made by him is a false statement made intentionally. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that when books are not produced as per the notice issued under section 142 of the Act, it is imperative on the part of the concerned officers to act under section 132, viz., issue a warrant for search. Failure to issue a search warrant does no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch 15, 1966, under exhibit P-22 before P. W 1 is clearly false. Section 136 of the Income-tax Act provides that any proceedings under the said Act before an income-tax authority shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding for purposes of sections 193 and 228 and for the purpose of section 196 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, exhibit P-22 is a statement made by petitioner No. 2 before P. W. 1 in a judicial proceeding. This statement is a sworn statement. P. W. 1 also has sworn that he recorded this sworn statement from petitioner No. 2. He has not been cross-examined on this aspect. The conviction of the 2nd petitioner under section 193 of the Indian Penal Code is also correct and the same is confirmed. The court below has imposed a fine of Rs. 2,000 under this count. For the offence under section 276(1)(c) the firm and this petitioner have been each sentenced separately to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000. Taking these facts into consideration, while confirming the conviction under section 193 of the Indian Penal Code, I reduce the fine levied under count No. 2, viz., under section 193, Indian Penal Code, to one of Rs. 500 (rupees five hundred only), in default simple imprisonment for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
