9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (7) TMI 88X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e:-One Adhimulam, a transport contractor, arrayed as the first accused (the petitioner being the second accused) and doing business in transport of oil, etc., from storage points and installations of Indian Oil Corporation, Bharat Petroleum and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, to various factories in and around Madras, filed on July 30, 1983, a return of income, along with profit and loss account and balance-sheet for the assessment year 1983-84. It is alleged that on October 27, 1983, a search of his business premises and residential premises was made under section 132(1) of the Act, which resulted in the seizure of certain documents, account books and papers. On a perusal of the above materials, it was found that the statement of profit a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue, no inference could be drawn that the petitioner acted in furtherance of common intention, along with the first accused or had conspired with the first accused or had abetted the first accused in making a false return. The auditor would prepare the profit and loss account and the balance-sheet on the materials that are placed before him by his client and the profit and loss account and balance-sheet so prepared, would be typed in the letter-head of the auditor to show that the same has been prepared by him on the basis of the accounts placed before him by his client. Even if, on the basis of some additional information, it was later proved that the profit and loss account and the balance-sheet were found to be false, no liability could b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g with it. The question, whether there is any basis for holding that there is a prima facie case against the petitioner for the offences shown in the complaint for the trial to proceed with has, therefore, to be determined only on the allegations made in the complaint. The returns, which later were found to be false, are said to have been filed by the first accused on July 30, 1983. The petitioner, therefore, should have scrutinised the accounts and prepared the returns prior to July 30, 1983. The search was made on October 27, 1983. It is stated that certain documents were seized both from the residence as well as from the business premises of the first accused. There is no allegation in the complaint that these documents had actually been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... We do not agree that the respondent is under any such duty to the Department and, therefore, no question of negligence arises." The auditor could prepare returns only on the materials placed before him by his client. There is no presumption that all materials available with the client are being placed before the auditor. Unless there was evidence to indicate that the additional materials, which had been unearthed during the seizure, had also been placed before the auditor and despite the same, the latter prepared false returns and made the first accused sign the same and delivered it to the Department, the auditor will not become liable under any one of the above provisions of law. Merely preparing returns on the basis of the accounts pl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
