Proof beyond reasonable doubt in tax prosecution failed where demand draft entries could not be linked to business transactions.

The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the assessee concealed taxable income or fabricated account books by omitting demand draft transactions, so the convictions could not stand. The Court gave due regard to the income-tax appellate authority's deletion of the related additions and also found the evidence unreliable: the principal witness was inconsistent, the drafts were not tied to any invoice or specific business transaction, the employee who purchased the drafts was not examined, and there was no dependable proof that the funds belonged to the accused or that the books were falsified to evade tax. The acquittal was therefore confirmed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused concealed taxable income and fabricated account books by omitting the demand draft transactions, so as to sustain the convictions under the income-tax and penal provisions.

Analysis: The acquittal was upheld because the income-tax appellate authority had deleted the impugned additions, which the Court gave due regard to while assessing whether the disputed demand draft amounts were connected with the assessee's business. Independently of that order, the evidence was found unsatisfactory: the testimony of the principal witness was inconsistent, the drafts could not be linked to any specific transaction or invoice, the employee who purchased the drafts was not examined, and there was no reliable proof that the funds belonged to the accused or that the account books were fabricated to evade tax.

Conclusion: The prosecution failed to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt, and the acquittal was confirmed in favour of the assessee.

---