TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (3) TMI 191
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inal Case No. 923 of 2011 dated 27-9-2013. 2. As per version of the appellant, both sides are well known to each other. On account of mutual relation appellant extended credit facility to the tune of Rs. 7,00,000/- to the respondent on 15-5-2011. The respondent issued a cheque of Axis Bank, Branch Dhamtari dated 8-7-2011 in favour of the appellant for a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/-. The cheque was placed before the Bank of India, Branch Kanker, but it was returned dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds vide written memo dated 9-7-2011. Appellant issued a notice to the respondent for payment of his money on 26-7-2011 through registered post which was duly served on the respondent on 28-7-2011. Despite receiving notice, respondent failed to pay....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sions court is liable to be set aside and the respondent be convicted for offence under Section 138 of the Act, 1881. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits as under: i) A blank cheque was given to the appellant by signing in black ink and no amount was mentioned in the said cheque at the time of delivery of the cheque because the same was blank cheque. ii) (DW/1) Manjit Singh Thakur deposed that cheque was given for Rs. 7,000/- and no income tax account and no cash account of the shop was produced before the trial court . iii) The appellant admitted that the amount was not filled up by the respondent but it is filled up by the appellant after receiving the blank cheque. The cheque was not issued on 8-7-2011....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t he advanced a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- to the respondent for construction of house and agricultural purpose and in discharge of that liability he had drawn a cheque in his favour. Shyam Sahu (PW/3) deposed that Rs. 7,00,000/- was advanced by the appellant to respondent. Appellant deposed (para 11) before the trial court that currency notes of Rs. 1000/-, Rs. 500/- and Rs. 100/- were advanced to respondent. Complainant (PW/1) deposed (para 9) that though entry in cheque was made by him, but respondent signed after filing of the entry of cheque. As per version of this witness, respondent is economically sound and looking to his financial status, he advanced a sum to him. As per version of this witness (para 11) he is a Jeweller having turnover....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... survive and shall end only when contrary is proved by the accused/respondent. 10. True it is that no account register or income tax return was produced by the appellant, but when respondent himself has not denied the borrowing of money and did not enter into witness box, presumption will not be rebuttable. If anything is done contrary to the provisions of Income Tax Act, the authorities of Income Tax Department can take notice of it. Again, any supportive document or account is corroborative piece of evidence. Corroboration is not a rule of law, but it is a rule of prudence and presumption under Section 139 of the Act, 1881 is rule of law and presumption has to be drawn by the court as per Section 139 of the Act, 1881. When legal presumpt....