1985 (1) TMI 37

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n are that petitioner No. 5, the firm Messrs Mohinder Pal Ajay Kumar, Timber Merchants, Kath Mandi, Hissar, is an income-tax assessee and is being assessed to income-tax by the ITO, A-Ward, Hissar. On August 31, 1981, the firm, Messrs Mohinder Pal Ajay Kumar, filed a return of income dated August 31, 1981, along with the copies of statement of accounts, i.e., statutory income chart, profit and loss account, statement of partners account, balance-sheet, etc., for the assessment year 1981-82, relevant to the accounting year 1980-81, declaring an income of Rs. 75,224. The return was signed and verified by Murari Lal, the petitioner. He also put his signature on the statement of accounts annexed to the return. The petitioner firm maintained the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... firm added Rs. 35,000 to the profit in the timber trading account by mentioning " To profit to Supp. to P L a/c " and likewise the petitioner firm showed the closing stock of the value of Rs. 61,450 and later on, as aforesaid, added the stock of Rs. 35,000 by mentioning the words " Add closing stock valuation " making a total stock of Rs. 96,450. In this manner, the petitioners attempted to conceal the correct particulars of the income and drew an additional amount in their books of account for the aforementioned assessment year by mentioning the words " To profit to Supl. P L a/c ". In this way, the petitioner firm wilfully attempted to evade tax, penalty or interest chargeable or imposable on it by preparing false books of account whi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ntention of the learned counsel. In view of the provisions of s. 278B of the I.T. Act, the prosecution of these three petitioners is misconceived and is nothing short of an abuse of the process of the court. However, as far as petitioner No. 1, namely, Murari Lal is concerned, admittedly, he submitted the return. According to the allegations contained in the complaint, he was a person who was in charge of, and responsible to, the firm for the conduct of the business of the firm and he was actually the person who signed and verified the particulars of the return and submitted the same to the Department. Resultantly, the complaint and all the proceedings taken in consequence of the complaint against the three petitioners, namely, Mangey Ram, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X