9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (4) TMI 3X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the charge under s. 277 of the I.T. Act, vide its judgment dated April 12, 1978. The complainant, therefore, filed Criminal Appeal No. 58 of 1979 against the aforesaid acquittal of Lal Chand. This judgment, therefore, shall dispose of that appeal also. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the complaint filed a complaint against all the three respondents alleging that they along with Smt. Veero and one Daljit Rai filed an application on April 30, 1956, for the registration of their firm, named and styled as M/s. Roda Ram Lal Chand, under s. 26A of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, for the assessment year 1957-58. The partnership deed dated April 20, 1956, purporting to be signed by Daljit Rai also was presented along with that application and, consequently, the registration of the firm was obtained on the basis of the partnership deed and the representations made in the application. During the proceedings for the assessment year 1962-63, it came to the notice of the I.T. Department that Daljit Rai partner was aged about ten years and, as such, he was a minor. Accordingly, Shri Joginder Singh, ITO, P.W. 2, cancelled registration of the firm for the assessment year 1957-58 and also i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rofits earned from these transactions nor did the personal accounts of the partners show the distribution of these profits. Thus, it appeared that the assessee-firm had another set of books for the accounting year 1962-63 in which these business transactions had been recorded and from which opening debit balance as posted in the Dasti Bahi had been brought forward. The respondents failed to produce the genuine set of books despite notice being served on them requiring them to produce those genuine account books and, accordingly, the assessee-firm was given an opportunity to show cause as to why that entire amount be not treated as income of the firm from undisclosed sources. After getting a number of adjournments, the assessee-firm applied to the Commissioner that the amounts shown in the Dasti Bahi be treated as its concealed income and the same be spread over a number of relevant years. However, that request was turned down. The assessee again submitted another application which was also rejected. Thereafter, the assessee-firm was given a notice to produce evidence on which it might rely in respect of the addition of Rs. 75,221 to its total income. Mohan Lal respondent appeared i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or, Ludhiana, P.W. 5, and Shri S.K. Jain, Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), Rohtak, P.W. 6. All the three accused-respondents, in their statements recorded after the close of the prosecution evidence, admitted having filed the return of income and also that they had got their firm registered with the I.T. Department, but pleaded ignorance about all other facts. Both Mohan Lal and Sohan Lal respondents further added that they did not remember the facts and pleaded their ignorance in respect thereof. However, none of the accused produced any evidence in their defence. The result of the trial of the case has already been indicated above, and so also the result of the appeal filed by Lal Chand against his conviction and sentence. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that Lal Chand respondent filed ex. P.K. return of income of the assessee-firm for the assessment year 1963-64 before the I.T. authorities and along with it he also filed statements of accounts, exs. P.L., P.M., P.N. and P.O. signed by Mohan Lal respondent. In ex. P.K., the total income of the assessee firm shown was Rs. 17,477 only. Therefore, the business premises of the firm o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . We are of the considered opinion that the evidence produced in this case is hardly sufficient to prove the charges under s. 277 of the I.T. Act and s. 193, IPC, against the respondents or any of them. The main documentary evidence which has been relied upon by the prosecution to prove its charges against the respondents is Dasti Bahi, ex. P. Y., allegedly recovered by the I.T. authorities from the business premises of the firm of the respondents when raid was carried out at the said premises by those authorities, but we doubt if the alleged recovery of Dasti Bahi, ex. P. Y., and also the contents of that Bahi, have been got duly proved by leading any legal evidence. Shri S. K. Jain, Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, P.W.-6, has stated that he inspected the business premises of M/s. Roda Ram Lal Chand at Baba Bakala in Amritsar District, on September, 21, 1963, and from those premises, the Dasti Bahi, ex. P.Y., was taken into possession by him. Admittedly, at that time, those premises stood locked. It is to be noted that no seizure memo was prepared by Shri Jain, P.W., in respect of the seizure of that Dasti Bahi, from there. Thus, there is the solitary statement of Shri Ja ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent or other respondents during the course of their examination after the close of the prosecution evidence, Of course, these documents, exs. P.A.C., P.A.M. and P.A.N., were put to him and he was questioned whether he had made those applications and signed the same. On this, he replied in the affirmative. Now, it is well-settled that if an accused person admits his signature on a particular document it does not mean that he has, thereby, admitted the contents of that, document. It is to be noted that the contents of the aforementioned applications were never put to Mohan Lal, respondent, or any of the other two respondents when they were examined under s. 342, Cr. PC, after the close of the prosecution evidence. No other evidence has been led to prove the contents of those documents which contain the alleged admissions of Mohan Lal with regard to the contents of ex. P. Y. It is, therefore, abundantly clear that the contents of exs. P.A.C., P.A.M., P.A.N. and P.Y. on which only reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the appellants for proving the case of the prosecution against the respondents have not been got proved by leading any legal evidence. That being so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
