9911796707
TMI Blog1977 (1) TMI 30X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and in his return of income for the accounting period April 1, 1964 to March 31, 1965, filed before the Income-tax Officer, D. Ward, Jullundur, on March 29, 1966, he had indicated a net loss of Rs. 2,996.70, in respect of his Solan branch. The respondent had also verified the aforesaid return as required under the law. The Income-tax Officer, Jullundur, passed the assessment order in the case of the respondent on October 28, 1967. The respondent, however, preferred an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Jullundur, and at the time of hearing of the appeal, he produced some books of account including those pertaining to the Solan branch. When these books were scanned by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, he f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndent, therefore, prayed that no penalty be imposed upon him in this matter. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, however, passed an order on December 18, 1968, that the appellant had concealed the particulars of his income and had furnished inaccurate particulars thereof. He, therefore, imposed a penalty of Rs. 150 upon the respondent in this matter. Misfortune always come in by the door that has been left open for them. Even after the imposition of the penalty aforementioned, the respondent was visited with the present complaint under section 277 of the Act for his prosecution in connection with the same matter. The burden of the charge against the respondent, as can be gathered from the circumstances put to him in his examination unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... through the relevant material on the record including the depositions of the witnesses. The contention of Mr. Awasthy is that the trial court was not justified in coming to a conclusion that there was no dishonest intention on the part of the respondent in mentioning wrong figures in his return. It is argued that the signing and verification of the return containing false figures by itself should be enough to raise a presumption of dishonesty. For appreciating this argument, reference will have to be made to section 277 of the Act which says that if a person makes a statement in any verification under the Act, or delivers an account or statement which is false, he may be punished with the penalties as prescribed in the said section. Howeve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
