9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (7) TMI 39X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of the Chief judicial Magistrate, Hissar. On July 28, 1984, a raiding party headed by the Income-tax Officer, A-Ward, Rohtak, along with other officials of the Department raided the premises of the firm and seized certain books of account and documents. They also allegedly checked the stock of cloth physically and verified the stock inventory. The result of the entire raid was that the petitioners'firm was found having income of Rs. 1,80,791 but in the return they had shown only as Rs. 1,29,604 and the concealment Was of Rs. 50,687 for the assessment year 1985-86. The details of the alleged concealment given in para No. 2 of the present petition are reproduced as under: "(a) Investment in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Branch 'D', New Delhi, and it consisted of Shri F. C. Rustagi and Shri J. Kathuria. This Tribunal, in its order dated June 27, 1989 (annexure P-1), has held that investment in jewellery was made in the year 1983 when there was a marriage of the second son of the assessee. It was further observed that, in the course of search, no jewellery was recovered and only a parcha was found showing the investment made in purchase of the aforesaid jewellery. The relevant lines from the order of the Tribunal, after discussing this item, are reproduced as under : "When we carefully peruse the statement of Chandra Kanta and also carefully peruse the vouchers pertaining to jewellery and go through the detail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (P H). However, this case relates to District Ludhiana, where the alleged undisclosed amount was Rs. 16,50,000 when the balance-sheet of the company was placed before the assessing authority. The case now in hand is not where little relief has been given to the assessee but a case where all the four alleged concealments have been explained by the assessee. In the case now in hand, the pendency of the criminal complaint shall be an abuse of the process of the court. Learned counsel for the respondent has also referred to P. Jayappan v. S. K. Perumal, First ITO [1984] 149 ITR 696 (SC), wherein it was observed that the discretion should be exercised judicially and in such a way as not to frustrate the object of the criminal proceedings. Her ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
