1987 (3) TMI 72

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....etitioner No. 1, is a partnership firm. Daring the assessment year 1967-68, petitioners Nos. 2 and 3, namely, Shanti Lal Kapoor and Subhash Kapoor, were the partners of this firm. Suresh Kapoor, petitioner No. 4, became a partner of this firm subsequently in 1969. Income-tax return for the assessment year 1967-68 on behalf of the firm was filed by Shanti Lal Kapoor, petitioner No. 2, on August 24,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the order imposing penalty was cancelled (annexure P-3). Thereafter, the Income-tax Officer filed a complaint under sections 276C and 277 read with section 278 of the Income-tax Act against the petitioner (annexure P-4) for evading tax and filing false income-tax return. In this petition under section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, the complaint, annexure P-4, is ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....aint relates to the original return filed on behalf of the firm as well as the revised return filed after the search. The original return was admittedly filed on behalf of the firm by Shanti Lal Kapoor, petitioner No. 2. After the search, a revised return was filed showing the income of the firm as Rs. 1,49,860. In the impugned complaint, it is alleged that the original return was evidently false ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground that particulars of the income to a certain extent had been concealed and inaccurately furnished. However, this order was set aside in appeal (annexure P-3) as the Commissioner of Income-tax found that the facts did not justify the imposition of penalty. In other words, it was held that in the revised return neither any income had been concealed nor ina....