9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 1180X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tedly, this is an appeal against acquittal, which was recorded by the learned trial Court way back in the year 1994 and law is well settled that in case of acquittal, the presumption of innocence of accused as provided under law, is reinforced and unless there appears miscarriage of justice and compelling reasons, no judgment of acquittal can be interfered with after near about 29 years more particularly in a case of this nature, where the offences with which the respondent-accused stood charged. In this case, the appellant was charged for offence u/s 276(C)/277 of the IT Act, but offence u/s 276(C) of IT Act can be established by way of evidence that such persons willfully attempted in any manner whatsoever to evade any tax, penalty or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion. In the course of trial, the respondent-accused had stoutly taken two pleas. One is that even for a moment, the evidence of prosecution is taken into consideration, yet he cannot be convicted for the offences with which he stood charged for want of sanction, which is defective and illegal. Second is the pendency of penalty proceeding U/S.271(1) against him is a bar for institution of the complaint. The learned trial Court after due analysis of provision and evidence, had concurred with the above pleas of the respondent-accused, but in the course of hearing of this appeal, the appellant could not validly dispute the said findings of the learned trial Court and, it therefore, appears to this Court that the appellant has failed to sati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... even) to his total income, but the respondent-accused had omitted to mention the receipt of advance against incentive bonus of Rs. 24,491/- (Rupees Twenty-four Thousand and Four Hundred Ninety-one) for the financial year 1988-89. It is also claimed by the ITO that although accused had received conveyance allowance of Rs. 80,000/- (Rupees Eighty Thousand), but he had improperly shown it as Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) to evade tax liability by getting benefit U/S. 10(14) of the Act. The respondent-accused had also explained about receipt of Rs. 20,418/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand and Four Hundred Eighteen) deposited in his SB account as an advance from LIC, but the Branch Manager, LIC, Koraput, on being asked, answered the details of paymen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the Office of the Branch Manager, LIC, but the ITO hurriedly passed the assessment order without appreciating the material furnished by him. Being aggrieved by the order of acquittal of the respondent-accused, the IT Officer being authorized, has filed this appeal challenging the acquittal of the respondent-accused. 4. In the course of hearing of the appeal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Union of India contends that the learned trial Court has fallen in error in appreciating the evidence on record and, thereby, had illegally recorded the finding in the complaint by acquitting the respondent-accused. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-accused has submitted that the learned trial Court has n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e learned trial Court has rightly framed the points of determination and proceeded to appreciate the evidence on record. On reappraisal of the evidence by this Court, it is now to be seen whether the findings of the learned trial Court are perverse or unsustainable in the eye of law. Now let us see whether the respondent-accused had furnished false return with intent to evade payment of tax. It is alleged against the respondent-accused that he had omitted to show the receipt of advance against incentive bonus for an amount of Rs. 24,691/- (Rupees Twenty-four Thousand and Six Hundred Ninety-one) as well as he had shown inflated figure of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupee One Lakh) as against Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) received towards additiona ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent-accused had not either willfully concealed any amount in his return or had not any intention/mens rea on his part. On the other hand, P.W. 2, who had passed the assessment order on the return of the respondent-accused, had admitted in the cross examination that he received reply under Ext. 2/13 on 30.01.1991 and passed the assessment order on 31.01.1991, which is just one day after receipt of the letter from LIC Office, Koraput. It is also admitted by P.W. 2 that the respondent-accused had not been noticed to have his say in the matter and the BM, LIC did not proved by showing any document of his Office that the respondent-accused had received Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) towards his additional conveyance allowance at the tim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
