9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (12) TMI 34X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... darkhan Masjid Street, Cuddapah, and they all proposed to sell the said house property to A-4 and another Meda Vijayalaxmi and they have filed an application under section 230A(1) of the Income-tax Act on November 13, 1987, enclosing a copy of the sale deed proposed to be registered with the Sub-Registrar, Cuddapah, before the Income-tax Officer, A-Ward, Cuddapah, requesting for issue of a certificate under section 230A(1) of the Income-tax Act so as to enable them to register the sale deed as proposed. The sale consideration as disclosed by A-1 to A-3 and the other two is Rs. 1,20,000. On November 14, 1987, the Income-tax Officer, A-Ward, Cuddapah, has carried out survey operations under section 133A of the Act on the business premises of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncome-tax Act against A-4 were framed. The charges were explained to the accused. Thereafter PWs 1 and 2 were called and cross-examined and exhibit P-18 to P-23 were marked. The accused were examined under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code, after the evidence of the prosecution was closed. In their evidence they stated that they have filed an application in Form No. 34A under section 230A of the Income-tax Act under exhibit P-1 on November 13, 1987, and that the house property as per exhibit P-2 sale deed was proposed to be sold for a consideration of Rs. 1,20,000 and that as per exhibit P-3 the stamped papers were purchased in the name of A-4 on July 24, 1987, and the agreement exhibit P-3 was executed on July 27, 1987, signed by A-1 to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... v. Union of India [1992] 197 ITR 196 (SC) against which the present appeal is filed. In the grounds of appeal, it is stated that the fact that the accused filed false statements in the applications filed under section 230A is not doubted. Therefore, they have committed the offence under section 276(c) and under section 277 read with section 278 of the Income-tax Act and, therefore, they are liable to be punished. It is also stated that the learned judge failed to take into consideration that the Central Board of Direct Taxes Circulars were only guidelines for Departmental purposes and held that they are not liable for punishment under the Income-tax Act, whereas the section categorically says that they are liable for punishment. As reg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gorous imprisonment, etc. Sub-section (2) says that in any other case with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three months and which may extend to three years and with fine. A reading of clauses (i) and (ii) of section 277 makes it clear that the punishment under section 277 can be imposed under clause (i), if evasion of tax exceeds one hundred thousand rupees with rigorous imprisonment and three months in other cases, other than those cases where the evasion of tax is less than one hundred thousand rupees. Therefore, the punishment under clause (ii) can be imposed only if there is any evasion of tax, otherwise the question of imposing punishment does not arise. In this context the judgment of the Supreme Court in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
