2000 (2) TMI 59

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ffences punishable under sections 2 76C(1) and 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the basis of a complaint filed by the Income-tax Officer alleging that he filed false income-tax return and deliberately suppressed the real turnover of his business and the profits made by him during the year 1981-82 and wilfully attempted to evade income-tax payable by him. It is alleged that the revision petitioner was a contractor in respect of arrack shops in Kazhakkoottam Excise Range during the financial year 1981-82 (assessment year 1982-83). He filed a return of income for the assessment year 1982-83 on September 21, 1982, with the verification signed by him showing a net loss of Rs. 2,02,702 from his arrack business and a net profit of Rs. 3,28,6....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....from other contractors over and above the monthly quota issued to him by the Government as per the certificate issued by the Excise Inspector. He also admitted that he had made a profit of Rs. 1,40,000 by sale of arrack received from other contractors. Therefore, according to the respondent, the above facts reveal that the petitioner wilfully filed a false return of income under section 139 of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1982-83, deliberately suppressed real turnover and income and wilfully attempted to evade income-tax payable by him and as such committed offences punishable under sections 276C(1) and 277 of the Income-tax Act. After the complainant's PW 1 and PW 2 were examined, the respondent contended that the petition....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....,02,702 and, subsequently, it was revealed from the documents, which were not disputed by the petitioner, that he received a large quantity of arrack, much in excess of the quantity mentioned in the certificate obtained by him from the Excise Inspector and placed before the respondent is admitted by him. He also admitted that he had purchased arrack from other contractors. Further, he filed a cash flow statement stating that he made a profit of Rs. 1,40,000 by sale of arrack received by him from other contractors. These allegations made by the complainant will stand even though the Appellate Tribunal had found that the excess income derived by the petitioner cannot be construed as income from business, but should be construed as income f....