TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1981 (1) TMI 30
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Ex. 1) to the ITO, Cuttack, for the assessment year 1958-59, on February 27, 1959, showing an income of Rs. 4,319.48 under the head " Business " which comprised his income out of his share in M/s. Consolidated Construction Co., Cuttack. The return was verified as required under the I.T. Act. The accused had disclosed that he had 1/3rd share in M/s. Consolidated Construction Co., Cuttack, and had no other source of income. The assessment was completed by the ITO on February 28, 1959, on the belief that no other income had actually accrued to the accused. The accused had furnished another return (Ex. 2) of his income to the ITO, Cuttack, for the very same assessment year on February 13, 1959, showing an income of Rs. 5,160 under the head "Bus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oner of Income-tax, the complaint was filed by the ITO, Cuttack (P.W. 1), on January 25, 1974, alleging the accused to have committed offences under s. 52 of the 1922 Act and under various sections of the IPC. The court took cognizance of the offence under s. 52 of the 1922 Act and summoned the accused to stand his trial. The plea of the accused was that during the relevant period he had his office at Calcutta. His brother, who was the partner of M/s. Consolidated Construction Co., Cuttack, died suddenly whereafter he was taken as one of the partners of the firm. The income of the firm was to be paid to the family members of the accused who were staying at Cuttack. So the accused had no knowledge of the income derived from the said firm.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... filed two returns which go to show that he wanted to evade tax and the plea taken by him should not be accepted. He further submitted that the question of bona fides on the part of the accused-respondent does not arise. In this case, it is the admitted fact that the accused had filed two returns in Exs. I and 2 for the assessment year 1958-59 and after detection he has submitted a consolidated return. Section 52 of the 1922 Act reads as follows: " If a person makes a statement in a verification mentioned in section 19A or section 20A or section 21 or section 22 or sub-section (2) of section 26A or sub-section (3) of section 30, or sub-section (3) of section 33, which is false, and which he either knows or believes to be false, or doe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lf of the accused. He has also stated that he was not aware of the filing of Ex. 2 by P.W. 4. The other statements made by him are identical to that of P.W. 4. The learned trial court has considered the evidence of these two advocates and has observed that there was no reason to disbelieve them, who are responsible persons. Simply because they were the advocates of the accused, it cannot be said that they would make false statements before the court in favour of the accused. From their evidence, it has been satisfactorily proved that the accused was not present when Exs. 1 and 2 were filed before the I.T. authorities. On the instruction, given by the accountants of the firms, in which the accused was the partner, the returns were prepared a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ens Yea has been expressly or by necessary implication excluded by the statute. So considering the evidence on record and the plea of the accused and in the facts and circumstances of the case it cannot be held that the accused filed two returns for the assessment year 1958-59, deliberately and intentionally with a guilty mind and in order to take undue advantage or defraud the I.T. Dept. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent cited a decision reported in Biju alias Bijayananda Patnaik v. Union of India [1982] 136 ITR 861 (Orissa). In that case, the accused was also prosecuted for filing false statement under s. 277 of the I.T. Act, 1961. It has been held. " ... prosecution ... must show that the statement made by the accused is....