9911796707
TMI Blog1941 (8) TMI 23X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the power of attorney agent of the firm in Madras. The sixth accused submitted an income-tax return showing profits of about ₹ 5,000. P.W. 4, the then Income-tax Officer, upon looking through the accounts of the accused firm, discovered that the figure 'I' had been introduced in front of the figures 3110 on the debit side, thus indicating an expenditure of ₹ 10,000 more than if that 'I' had not been inserted. This aroused P.W. 4's suspicions, and so he examined the accounts more closely. He then discovered that many fraudulent entries had been made in the accounts and that the profits were at least ₹ 41,672. After a full examination of the accounts he assessed the firm's profits at more than ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 to 5 in the conduct of the Madras business. A general power of attorney by the five partners in his favour has been marked as Exhibit U. It is however argued by all the six accused that the sixth accused had no authority to file an income-tax return. The power of attorney is worded in the very widest terms, although no specific reference is made to the filing of income-tax returns. The sixth accused is empowered under clause 5 to "sign and verify plaints......and all documents and papers and to institute or defend any proceeding is any court of law etc." In clause II he is authorised to appear and represent the firm "before any revenue officer..... railways, Port Trust, Corporations, and all departments of the Government or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the purpose of filing income-tax returns and that accused 1 to 5 intended him to file them and expressly or impliedly authorised him to file the return in question. A more serious argument against the validity of the prosecution is that in law he was not the agent of the firm, in that the Income-tax Act does not permit of an agent's presenting an income-tax return. It is pointed out that Section 22(2), for example, requires the Income-tax Officer to serve a notice upon any person whose total income in his opinion is such an amount as is liable to render such person liable to income-tax. That person is then required to make a report. The subsequent sections continue to refer to that person. That person may be a firm, it is argued; but ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere means the assessee, as it does in Section 22(2) and elsewhere, and that one should not give to the word "person" in this section its ordinary meaning. I do not see why the word "person" should not have its dictionary meaning in Section 52; but even if it means only what the same word means in Section 22(2), I am satisfied for the reasons given above that the word "person" includes a person duly authorised. Far from agreeing, therefore, with the learned Magistrate that "the sixth accused had no authority in law or in fact to make the return which he did "I hold that the sixth accused had authority both in law and in fact to make the return he did. The learned Magistrate has discussed but little th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sive against the accused that nothing he can say would rebut that evidence. But I think that these facts and the other evidence in the case require further consideration by the Magistrate. With regard to the charge against the accused under Sections 193 and 196 of the Indian Penal Code, Mr. Venkatarama Sastri has put up a very strong argument which if correct, would show that the complaint had not been made by the proper person within the meaning of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This objection to the complaint was not raised in the Magistrate's Court, and the learned Public Prosecutor points out that because that was not done, he is not in a position on the evidence on record to satisfy me that the complaint was made b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
