1999 (9) TMI 37

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nizance was taken of the alleged offences under section 276C of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), and the petitioners were summoned to stand their trial. According to the petition of complaint lodged by one Lekha Shrivastava, Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Patna, the petitioners herein had, inter alia, disclosed a sum of Rs. 52,000 in their returns, but had refused to disclose the source of income. Therefore, penalty proceedings were initiated against them under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and a penalty of Rs. 14,367 was imposed on them. The same was reduced to Rs. 2,701 by the appellate authority, and was affirmed by the Tribunal by its order dated December 20, 1989. On these allegations, the aforesaid p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ee months but which may extend to three years and with fine." Learned counsel is right in his submission that there is no allegation against them in the petition of complaint that any income was sought to be held back or was not disclosed in the returns. On the contrary, it is a prosecution for refusal to disclose the source of income. It is manifest from a plain reading of the aforesaid provisions that prosecution can lie only if a person wilfully attempts in any manner whatsoever to evade any tax, penalty or interest chargeable or imposable under this Act. In the present case, there is no allegation that the petitioners failed to disclose any taxable income which could have resulted in evasion of any tax, penalty or interest chargeable....