TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1954 (11) TMI 1
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Deshmukh, deceased, (now represented on record by his legal representatives) and S. B. Deshmukh, both cousins, formed a joint Hindu family of which the former was the manager. For facility of the management of business S.B. Deshmukh managed money-lending shops at Kelod and Rajegaon, while P. B. Deshmukh managed the shop at Badegaon. On the 1st of April, 1930, the Income-tax Officer, Nagpur, issued a notice under section 22, sub-section (2), of the Income-tax Act against the three shops of the firm calling for the return of the total income of the joint family during 1928-29. On the 3rd July, 1930, M. K. Hirde, who held a general power of attorney from the two cousins, filed a return which was signed and verified by him as agent. Pursuant ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3 as interest, against the Secretary of State for India in Council. The ground of the claim was that P. B. Deshmukh's statement of 13th December, 1930, was incorrectly recorded and that the sum of Rs. 30,000 was extorted from him under a threat of legal proceedings which were without jurisdiction and that he had committed no offence. The plea that the omission was due to the mistake of the agent was reiterated. The suit was resisted and it was pleaded in defence that both the statements of P. B. Deshmukh, dated 23rd November, and 13th December, 1930, were correctly recorded, that the proposal for compounding the offence on payment, of Rs. 30,000 emanated from P. B. Deshmukh himself after he had consulted his counsel and that there was no co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... compound the offence after consulting his legal adviser knowing fully well that he was at fault and was liable to be prosecuted under section 52 of the Act. The High Court also found that P.B. Deshmukh knew not only that he was liable to be prosecuted but that he would, in all probability, be convicted and sentenced and in consequence of this apprehension he admitted his guilt and volunteered to pay Rs. 30,000 as composition fee. The High Court held that P.B. Deshmukh was bound by the action of his agent and was liable under section 52 but even if he was not liable as a principal but only as an abettor that was a question for the criminal court to decide. In the result the appeal was dismissed. Upon the concurrent findings of fact arrive....