9911796707
TMI Blog1954 (11) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld be prosecuted either under section 51(c) or section 52 and even if he had been prosecuted by the Income-tax authorities under section 52 only, there was nothing to prevent the Court from altering the charge to one under section 51(c) if it thought fit. Appeal dismissed. - - - - - Dated:- 11-11-1954 - Judge(s) : N. H. BHAGWATI., T. L. VENKATARAMA AYYAR, MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN., S. R. DAS JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was delivered by MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN, C.J.-----This appeal arises from the judgment and decree dated 28th February, 1945, of the High Court of Nagpur upholding the dismissal of the suit by the First Additional District Judge, Nagpur, on 30th June, 1938. The certificate for leave to appeal to this Court was g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied with his explanation, the Income-tax Officer recommended P. B. Deshmukh's prosecution and the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax issued notice to him to show cause why his prosecution in respect of these omissions should not be sanctioned. The Assistant Commissioner examined P. B. Deshmukh on 13th December, 1930, when he admitted that he had concealed income of over Rs. 30,000. He was told that he would he prosecuted under section 52 of the Act. As a result of the discussion which followed, P. B. Deshmukh proposed that the offence should be compounded under section 53 upon payment by him of Rs. 30,000 to the taxing authorities and this was agreed to by the Assistant Commissioner. The payment was made in two instalments and the matter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ffence upon payment of Rs. 30,000. The trial Court held that the claim was the outcome of legal advice rather than one of an aggrieved person compelled to pay under threat of legal prosecution with a show of domination under power of authority. The trial Court also held that the agent who held the general power of attorney from P.B. Deshmukh was competent to sign and verify the income-tax returns and that the latter was liable to prosecution under section 107 read with section 177, Indian Penal Code. Upon these findings the claim was dismissed. The High Court on appeal upheld the finding that the two statements of 23rd November and 13th December, 1930, were an authentic record of the statement of P.B. Deshmukh. It further found that P. B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 52 except at the instance of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner and that the last-mentioned officer may, before or after the institution of proceedings, compound any such offence. The section does not say that the offence can only be compounded if it is proved to have been actually committed. If there is a proceeding on a charge under section 51 or section 52, it comes within the purview of section 53 and a compounding of the offence will be quite within the section. P. B. Deshmukh being anxious to avoid his liability for prosecution made a voluntary offer to compound the offence which the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax was fully competent to accept under section 53 of the Act. The offer was made obviously to avert the disgrace a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
