Political contribution deductions require assessee-specific proof before cash-back allegations can justify disallowance or unexplained-money additions...
The HC held that the offence under Section 454 of the Companies Act is a continuing offence and is summons-triable; however, the prosecution failed to discharge the initial burden of proving the preliminary facts (notice, lapse of prescribed time, availability of company records) necessary to establish wilful default so as to shift the evidential onus to the accused under the evidentiary provision. Because the prosecution did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the failure to file the statement of affairs was without reasonable excuse, the onus never shifted and all accused were acquitted.
The HC held that the offence under Section 454 of the Companies Act is a continuing offence and is summons-triable; however, the prosecution failed to discharge the initial burden of proving the preliminary facts (notice, lapse of prescribed time, availability of company records) necessary to establish wilful default so as to shift the evidential onus to the accused under the evidentiary provision. Because the prosecution did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the failure to file the statement of affairs was without reasonable excuse, the onus never shifted and all accused were acquitted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Join Channel 
