9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (3) TMI 18X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income disclosing total income of Rs. 2,88,434.62 along with a letter stating that the reasons for filing the revised return and the reply to the letter dated January 20, 1979, would be filed on February 9, 1979. On February 15, 1979, the 1St petitioner-firm filed a reply. Two sworn statements were recorded from accused No. 3, one on September 24, 1983, and the other on November 2, 1983. The assessment was completed on March 30, 1979, determining the income at Rs. 3,40,347 by taking into consideration the revised return filed on March 7, 1979. The Income-tax Officer, by his order dated December 17, 1983, levied penalty for the three assessment years under section 271 (1)(c) of the Income-tax Act for concealment of the income. The assessee succeeded in the penalty proceedings finally before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and a revised reference was also asked for and the same was rejected. Before the determination by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, complaints have been filed in C. C. Nos. 126, 127 and 128 of 1986 for the concealment of income of Rs. 1,13,365, Rs. 2,85,921 and Rs. 4,70,849 for the assessment years 1976-77, 1977-78 and 1978-79, respectively, against the petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal. Section 279 of the Act provides that a person shall not be proceeded against for an offence under section 276C or section 277 of the Act, except at the instance of the Commissioner. It further provides that a person shall not be proceeded against for an offence punishable under those provisions in relation to the assessment for an assessment year in respect of which penalty imposed or imposable on him under clause (iii) of sub-section (1) of section 271 has been reduced or waived by an order under section 273A of the Act. The Commissioner has power either before or after the institution of proceedings to compound any such offence. Learned counsel relied upon Uttam Chand v. ITO [1982] 133 ITR 909 (SC). In that case, for the assessment year 1969-70, the Income-tax Officer cancelled the registration on the ground that the firm was not genuine, on the basis of the statement of one of the parties that the signatures in the records were not hers and that she was not a partner. The Tribunal, on an appraisal of the material on record, found that she was a partner of the firm and that the firm was genuine and set aside the cancellation order of the Income-tax Officer. The Income-tax O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er section 276C or 277 of the Act. In criminal cases, all the ingredients of the offence in question have to be established in order to secure the conviction of the accused. The criminal court, no doubt, has to give due regard to the result of any proceeding under the Act having a bearing on the question in issue and in an appropriate case, it may drop the proceedings in the light of the order passed under the Act. It does not, however, mean that the result of a proceeding under the Act would be binding on the criminal court. The criminal court has to judge the case independently on the evidence placed before it. In the case on hand, the allegation is that the books of account contain false entries inasmuch as the value of finished goods were not shown in the closing stock figure shown in the goods account in the ledger. The mere fact that the revised returns were filed within the statutory period will not come in the way of the Department initiating action for the offences under section 276C or 277 of the Act. Whether false statement and verification have, been made or not, has to be judged with reference to the date of the filing of the original return. In Uttam Chand's case [19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed. In other words, the test is that taking the allegations and the complaint as they are, without adding or subtracting anything, if no offence is made out, then the High Court will be justified in quashing the proceedings in exercise of its powers under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. " By applying that test, if we see the complaint as it is, it has been mentioned about non-disclosure of four items in one assessment year and the chart filed discloses the exact position as to when the original return was filed, when the revised return was filed and when the complaint has been filed. The chart is as under: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the assessment year C. C. No. 126/86 C. C. No. 127/86 C. C. No. 128/86 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Date of filing of original return 25-9-1976 14-10-1977 21-11-1978 2. Date of filing of revised return 7-2-1979 15-6-1979 21-7-1979 3. Date of assessment 30-3-1979 29-12- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2] 134 ITR 8 (P & H), the prosecution was launched against the assessee-firm and its partners for offences under section 277 of the Income-tax Act and sections 193 and 471, IPC, on the basis of false returns, false accounts and inflated items of purchases. While the criminal case was pending, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal cancelled the penalty, holding that the material before the income-tax authorities did not disclose that the purchases were inflated. There was no proof that the assessee had concealed its income or furnished inaccurate particulars. A writ petition was filed by the assessee-firm and its partners for quashing the criminal case pending against them in the court of the Chief judicial Magistrate, Sonepat. It was observed that in view of the finding of the Appellate Tribunal that there was no concealment and no inaccurate accounts by the assessee-firm and its partners, the criminal proceedings against them could not continue and quashed the proceedings. The principle laid down in Uttam Chand's case [1982] 133 ITR 909 (SC) was also followed. Learned standing counsel for the Department contended that the mere fact that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, whose order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
