TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (5) TMI 156
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... one of its partner. M/s. Mangat Ram Norata Ram (hereinafter referred to as "the Firm") filed its income-tax return for the assessment year 1988-89 on 14-7-1988 through its counsel, which was signed and verified by Hem Raj, its partner. The income-tax return showed the income of the firm Rs. 1,02,800. Return was accompanied by statement of income, trading accounts, profit & loss account, partnership account and balance sheet for the assessment year 1988-89. The assessment was completed by the then Income-tax Officer under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act for Rs. 1,47,370. 3. Further case of the prosecution is that the books of the account of the firm were taken into possession by the Sales Tax Department, which were obtained by the I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ged for prosecution of respondents under sections 276C(1), 277 and 278 of the Act. The trial court on appraisal of the evidence held both the respondents guilty and awarded a fine of Rs. 1,000 each under sections 276C(1), 277 and 278 of the Act to respondent No. 1, the firm, whereas, respondent No. 2 was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 on each count and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. 6. Respondents aggrieved by their conviction and sentence preferred appeal and the Appellate Court set aside the conviction and sentence on the ground that sanction for prosecution was not valid. The Appellate Court further held that the prosecution has not been able to prove ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned the return even though the name Hem Raj appeared on the return. The prosecution could have examined a hand writing expert but failed to do so. For all these reasons the learned appellate court accepted the appeal and acquittal the respondents. The appellate court had taken a plausible view. It was neither perverse nor illegal. No ground exists to interfere with the decision of the appellate court". 7. Mr. Mukul Gupta, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the accused invited the order of the Income-tax Authority on the return so filed and aggrieved by the order of Income-tax Officer preferred appeal. According to him after the dismissal of the appeal by the Appellate Authority, the accused paid the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce to show that aggrieved by the order of assessing authority, appeal was preferred before the appellate authority under the signature of the accused Hem Raj, which was dismissed and the penalty was paid. At no point of time accused Hem Raj made any objection that the return did not bear his signature and was not filed by him. It is trite that admission is best evidence against the maker and it can be inferred from the conduct of the party. Admission implied by conduct is strong evidence against the maker but he is at liberty to prove that such admission was mistaken or untrue. By proving conduct of the accused Hem Raj in not raising any dispute at any point of time and paying the penalty, the prosecution has proved his admission of filing ....