TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (9) TMI 483
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sp; 2. In brief facts are that the respondents, hereinafter to be referred as 'the accused', had filed the return of the Income Tax for the assessment year 1990-91 and declared a net loss of Rs.2,53,840/-. The case was Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? selected for scrutiny and details of expenses by the Income Tax authorities. The accused had shown purchases of Rs.1,55,867/- from M/S Khan Packages, 984,Industrial Area, Phase-II, Ram Durbar, Chandigarh during the aforesaid period. On investigation, the Income Tax Department found no firm in existence on the given address. Despite opportunity, no bill of the said firm was produced by the accused persons. Thus a show cause notice was issued. In reply, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urt in the year 2008 and therefore, the ratio of the judgment in Prithpal Singh's case supra is not applicable to the present case. He also ventilated that the evidence led to prosecute the accused persons is worth inspiring confidence which establishes the willful attempt to evade the tax by the accused and presumption could have been drawn by the learned trial Court with respect to culpable mental state in view of Section 278(C) of the Act. 6. Shri M.M. Khanna, learned Senior Advocate duly assisted by Shri Vayur Gautam, Advocate, countered the above arguments on the ground that when the present case was decided, ratio of Prithipal Singh's case supra was in vogue. The ITAT had also decided the appeal filed by the accused in their f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ufficient to hold the accused guilty of the offence charged nor presumption can be drawn on probablities. 8. It is a cardinal principle of law involving imprisonment that however strong may be the suspicion, but it cannot take the place of proof. Therefore, the case against the accused persons stands not proved. 9. Further, I also find that the appellant had come to know about the alleged offence on its scrutiny and ultimately when the appeal filed by the accused was dismissed by CIT(A) on 3.2.1992. The present complaint was filed on 28.11.1995 after more than three years. The alleged offence against the accused is punishable with three years' imprisonment. Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure bars the cognizance of the of....