9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (6) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the assessment year 1970-71 corresponding to the financial year 1969-70. The return was signed and verified by the respondent himself. In the said return, the respondent as assessee showed income which is less than his actual income. Not being satisfied with the statement made in the return, the appellant issued notice to the respondent to appear on March 9, 1971. He was examined under section 131 of the income-tax Act. After examination of the respondent and on consideration of the relevant facts, the appellant passed an order under section 143(3) assessing the total income of the respondent as Rs. 43,404 for the said assessment. This income included Rs. 27,560, he received as medical attendant for giving treatment to the Central Governm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar also submits that the evidence of the witnesses abundantly shows that the respondent is guilty under section 277 of the Income-tax Act, inasmuch as, the ingredients of the said section have been fulfilled. Mr. Talukdar mainly relied the evidence of P.W.-1, G. N. Hazarika, Income-tax Officer, B-Ward, Guwahati. He submits that it was not proper on the part of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate to acquit the respondent of the charges levelled against him in view of the evidence on record. Mr. J. M. Choudhury, on the other hand, submits that none of the ingredients of section 277 of the Income-tax Act is present to warrant a conviction under the said section. Mr. Choudhury has drawn my attention to the portion of the evidence of P.W.-1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elieves to be false, or does not believe to be true, he shall be punishable, (i) in a case where the amount of tax, which would have been evaded if the statement or account had been accepted as true, exceeds one hundred thousand rupees, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to seven years and with fine ; (ii) in any other case, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three months but which may extend to three years and with fine. Therefore, under this section, the accused is punishable, if he makes a statement in any verification in the return or delivers an account or statement which is false, or which he either knows or believes not to be true. In orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n this manner. Prosecution also failed to prove that the petitioner (respondent (?)) made a false verification in the exhibit-3. Besides, it was also not proved that the statements are false. The appellant failed to prove the essentiality certificates also. Mr. Choudhury submits that there is no evidence to show that the verification was made by the respondent, knowing fully well that the statements made in the return are false. Mr. Talukdar has not been able to point out any evidence to show that the respondent had knowledge that the statements were false. Besides, in the statement recorded under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, also the respondent was not asked whether he put his signature in exhibit-3. The appellant simply a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
