TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (2) TMI 1698
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itioner to produce on record the income tax returns of the complainant/respondent was declined. 2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent/complainant has filed a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act against the petitioner on account of dishonouring of a cheque of Rs. 11 Lakh, which was allegedly given by the petitioner for repaying the said loan. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per the allegations in the complaint, the complainant has stated that he had advanced a loan of Rs. 11 Lakh to the petitioner/accused on 05.03.2008 by way of a demand draft and the petitioner was paying the interest of Rs. 8,250/- per month to clear the loan amount by February, 2012. It is further stated in the complaint that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....riod is 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12. It is further stated that the petitioner has obtained the ITRs of the complainant for the aforesaid period and found that in the column of 'income received from interest', it is stated to be 'nil' in all the ITRs. 9. Learned counsel has, thus, argued that this fact demolishes the case of the complainant as while appearing as PW-1, the complainant has stated that he has shown the interest received from the petitioner in his tax returns, whereas all the aforesaid ITRs of the relevant period do not reflect receiving of any interest and it supports the case of the petitioner that he has obtained an interest free loan from the complainant and in fact he was paying the installments t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... wide enough and where it comes on record that the proposed evidence is necessary for a fair and just decision of trial, the same can be allowed at any stage of trial. 14. In reply, learned counsel for the respondent/complainant has not disputed the factual position. It is also not disputed that the ITRs, pertaining to the years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12, i.e. prior to presentation of the cheque in dispute, are not on record. It is also not disputed that vide impugned order dated 27.10.2016, the trial Court has allowed the summoning of a Clerk of State Bank of India but this witness could not be examined as the petitioner/accused had not paid the cost of Rs. 10,000/- as imposed by the trial Court. 15. Learned counsel for the r....