https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16968 Forgery-related tax offences require affirmative proof that the accused participated in the forgery or caused the forged signatures, and that he knew of the forgery and acted with dishonest intent to secure an incorrect assessment benefit. Here, the forged nature of the signatures was shown, but the evidence did not link the accused to signing the names, directing their preparation, or knowing they were forged. The prosecution witnesses did not implicate him, and the defence evidence supported the ordinary practice of forms being routed through partners and the auditor. Suspicion or possible benefit was held insufficient, and the acquittal was upheld. en-us Fri, 22 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 14 Sep 2009 13:04:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16968 Forgery-related tax offences require affirmative proof that the accused participated in the forgery or caused the forged signatures, and that he knew of the forgery and acted with dishonest intent to secure an incorrect assessment benefit. Here, the forged nature of the signatures was shown, but the evidence did not link the accused to signing the names, directing their preparation, or knowing they were forged. The prosecution witnesses did not implicate him, and the defence evidence supported the ordinary practice of forms being routed through partners and the auditor. Suspicion or possible benefit was held insufficient, and the acquittal was upheld. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 22 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16968