9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (8) TMI 65X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h were filed by the appellant against the respondent in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate. The complainant, in discharge of his official duties and on being authorised by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi, filed a complaint for the said offences against the respondent in his capacity as sole proprietor of Pneumatic Spares Industries. The respondent was an income-tax assessee. For the assessment year 1965-66, he filed a return on June 30, 1965, declaring his income to be Rs. 1,452.12. He had declared his total sales at Rs. 15,970. The Income-tax Officer found the return to be false. He was also of the opinion that the respondent herein, i.e., the accused, had fabricated false evidence and had attempted to use it as true and gen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It was prayed that he be punished in accordance with law. After trial, the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused mainly on the ground that the matter had been compounded by the Income-tax Department. This finding was based on the evidence of P.W. 5, R. R. Gupta, who was at the relevant time the Assessing Officer of the appellant. In his cross-examination, he proved the issuance of letter dated February 4, 1971, by him to the accused. That letter completely supported the plea of the accused that there had been a settlement between the parties and in accordance with that settlement, he had paid income-tax on enhanced incomes and the penalty. That letter reads as follows : "As a result of settlement with you, your assessment for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al capacity but since he had no authority to compound the offence, the court ought not to have acted upon the same. He, however, admits that the accused had in terms of that settlement acted upon it. We are unable to agree with Mr. Satpal. The proceedings under the Act regarding the settlement (exhibit DA), which settlement was admittedly acted upon by the authorities, were within jurisdiction. It was not the case of the complainant before the trial court that the income-tax authorities could not settle the matter in the manner it was done. Because of the revised assessments for the said four years, viz., 1965-66 to 1968-69, the demands as well as the penalties imposed on the respondent were paid by him. This piece of evidence has a bear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
