2002 (3) TMI 29

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ine of Rs. 3,000, in default, further simple imprisonment for two months. He was also convicted for breach of section 277 of the Income-tax Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 2,000, in default further simple imprisonment for one month, this revision has been filed. The necessary facts in a narrow compass before the courts below were that the applicant submitted his income-tax return for the year 1982-83 on December 19, 1983. In the said return, he had shown the sale of his truck bearing Registration No. RRN 9872 to one Avtarsingh and Co., for a consideration of Rs. 80,000. But, when the matter was enquired into by the Income-tax Department, it was found to be sold for Rs. 1,30,000. Therefore, the ch....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....L. Kulkarni which is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the applicant. He has also submitted that the applicant was not having any mens rea for suppressing his income. He relied on the judgment reported in Daulatram v. State [1974] MPLJ (S. No.) 51 and B.T.X. Chemicals (P.) Ltd. v. Suraj Bhan [1989] 177 ITR 425 (Guj). The revised return was submitted by the applicant in which, he had shown the sale of the truck at the cost of Rs. 1,30,000, whereas in the first return, the cost of the truck was shown only at Rs. 80,000 and while considering the first return, the Department had traced and pointed out this fact. Thereafter, the revised return was filed saying that by mistake in the first return, the cost was shown at Rs. 80,000. The defen....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... one return, he has shown the price of the truck as Rs. 80,000 and in the second, the price is mentioned as Rs. 1,30,000. Therefore, both the aforesaid authorities are not helpful to the applicant. In the case of B.T.X. Chemicals (P.) Ltd. v. Suraj Bhan [1989] 177 ITR 425 (Guj), the court had come to the conclusion that by filing the return the assessee had made a bona fide mistake discovered subsequently, there was no mens rea, and therefore, the assessee was not liable for prosecution under section 276C. The facts of this case are altogether different than the case on hand. In the case of Daulatram v. State, the assessee had made the admission in the nature of concession during the course of assessment proceedings. On the basis of solitar....