TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (7) TMI 405
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that a raid was conducted in the premises of the accused/petitioner herein and during the raid, two agree-ments for construction of a building dated February 4, 1985, were found. One of the agreements shows the total value as Rs. 6,63,250 and the other one was for a value of Rs. 3,08,400. Though the two agreements are for the same purposes, they were showing different values. The Income-tax Department filed three complaints stating that the petitioner might have suppressed her income by resorting to the agreements for construction of similar projects. Three complaints were filed by the Department against the petitioner for three different assessment years, namely, 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1987-88. 3. The petitioner herein filed an app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....income-tax cases would submit that after tracing out the two agreements with different values, the revision petitioner/accused admitted that the second agree-ment was made for the lower amount for the purpose of evading income-tax, though the actual cost for construction of the house is Rs. 6,63,250. Her statement is marked before the trial court as exhibit P. 11. Learned special public prosecutor also submitted that the possession of two different documents is only for the purpose of evading tax and it cannot be merely construed as preparation to commit the offence, but wilful attempt has been made by the accused. The attempt made by the petitioner can be construed as wilful attempt, since as per section 278E of the Income-tax Act, the cul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 9. It is to be seen whether as per case of the complainant, prima facie charge can be framed for the offence under section 193 of the Indian Penal Code, which is as follows: "Whoever intentionally gives false evidence in any stage of a judi-cial proceeding, or fabricates false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine ;and whoever intentionally gives or fabricates false evidence in any other case, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine" 10. At the time of se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f shall include a case where any person ; (i) has in his possession or control any books of account or other documents (being books of account or other documents relevant to any proceeding under this Act) containing a false entry or statement ; or (ii) makes or causes to be made any false entry or statement in such books of account or other documents ; or (iii) wilfully omits or causes to be omitted any relevant entry or statement in such books of account or other documents ; or (iv) causes any other circumstances to exist which will have the effect of enabling such person to evade any tax, penalty or interest chargeable or imposable under this Act or the payment thereof." 12. As per the Explanation (i), if any person is in p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itioner in that case, who was legally by express provisions of law to state the truth and make a declaration regarding the market value of the property having failed to do so, has reference to the alleged declaration of the petitioner in Form 37-G prescribed under rule 48G of the Income-tax Rules. 15. In this particular case, there is a specific allegation that the petitioner/accused was in possession of two documents of agreements for the same purpose with different values. As already observed and as per the Explana-tion under section 276C of the Income-tax Act, prima facie material is available against the petitioner to frame charge under section 276C of the Income-tax Act. 16. Therefore, for the above said reasons, the first compla....