TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1992 (8) TMI 28
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e-tax, penalty and interest chargeable under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The accused pleaded "not guilty" thereto and claimed to be tried. Vide its impugned judgment, dated November 25, 1986, the learned trial court acquitted the accused. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal aforesaid, the Income-tax Officer, A-Ward, Hissar, has filed Criminal Appeal No. 391-DBA of 1987 in this court. We have heard Shri R. P. Sawhney, Advocate, for the appellant and Shri Ashok Aggarwal, Senior Advocate, with Sarvshri Rajesh Bindal and Ramesh Kumar, Advocates, for the respondents and have perused the relevant material on record very carefully. The facts leading to the prosecution are that the business premises of the accused firm were surveyed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot have disclosed the aforementioned amount of Rs. 35,000 as profit in the books of account and they mentioned this amount of profit after survey by drawing a separate profit account in the books of account by words "To profit to supplementary to profit and loss account" and in the stock account by words "Additional closing stock valuation by profit share from supplementary profit and loss account". Thus, the allegation that the accused had wilfully attempted in the aforementioned manner to evade tax, penalty and interest chargeable or imposable on him by preparing false books of account which were in their possession and control and made false entries in them regarding the stock held by them and wilfully omitted the entry of profit in thos....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was conducted on July 10, 1981, and inventory, exhibit PN, of the timber stock was prepared and signed by the accused, Murari Lal, and his statement, exhibit PL, to that effect was also recorded. According to him, the facts that the difference in valuation of about Rs. 35,000 was actually there and that the accused had shown their stock less by that amount stand admitted by the accused inasmuch as the accused No. 1 firm in its income-tax return for the assessment year 1981-82 copy, exhibit PC, has shown the said amount of difference in valuation by showing it as supplementary profit and to the same effect is the testimony of Shri V. P. Sikka, P. W.-I, Yogesh Kumar, P. W.-3 and S. P. Goel, P. W.-4. He has thus concluded that the prosecution....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the account books at about Rs. 33,991, the accused No. 1 firm while filing the income-tax return copy, exhibit PC, for the assessment year 1981-82 showed profit of Rs. 68,526.55 as per account books and also showed profit of Rs. 35,000 as supplementary profit keeping in view the said difference found in the survey conducted by the Income-tax Department on July 10, 1981. It is also admitted by the Income-tax Officer, S. P. Goel, who conducted the survey with the Inspector, Yogesh Kumar, P. W.-3, that during the course of the survey, he did not find any stock without a bill and he also did not find any bill which was not entered in the books of account of accused No. 1 firm. This crystal clear deposition on the part of this witness, S. P. Go....