This appeal has been filed by the complainant-appellant viz Income Tax Officer. A Ward, Tezpur against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darrang at Mangaldoi in CR Case No. 1354 of 1985. By the impugned judgment and order, the accused firm and its partners were found not guilty of the charge under section 276C and section 277 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The accused-respondent No. 1 is the partnership firm viz M/s Sunandarara Deka. The firm had partners viz Sunandaram Deka, Promode Chandra Deka, Mukul Chandra Deka, Sanjeeb Kumar Deka and Rajib Kumar Deka and late Kulen Deka. All other partners were sons of Shri Sunandaram Deka. 3. The prosecution was startle) under the aforesaid sections for assess­ment year 1981-82. The .partnership firm filed first return on 3.4.82 which was marked as Ext. 1 and duly signed and verified by its partner Sunandaram Deka. Tn the return, the total income was shown as Rs. 1,50,720/-which included income from business property at Rs. 1,16,444/- and income from business at Rs. 34,275/-. Assets were shown at Rs. 12,03,027/- and value of the stores at Rs. 3, 25,524/-. The firm filed another revised return voluntarily on 7.1.83 which was marked as Ext. 6. In the said revised return, the income shown as Rs. 1,88,740/- and income from house property as Rs. 1,16,589/-. Business income was shown as Rs. 72.152/-, value of the assets at Rs. 19,43,-145/-. This revised return was also verified by Sunandaram Deka. It may be stated that cash credit entry was shown at Ext. 6, but it was not shown at Ext. l. The Income Tax Officer, by exercising power under section 144B of the Income Tax Act proposed to add R-. 5,OG,000/- as income and as required under the law, the draft assessment order was sent to the firm and also to the higher authorities. The assessee admitted the addition of Rs. 4.54,652/- out of the above Rs. 5,00,000/- and a 3rd return was filed on 31.3.84 marked as Ext. 15. The total income was Rs. 6,43,390/-. I may add here that the assessment was completed on the basis of .these return and the society viz the partnership firm has cleared all the taxes etc. 4. 4.54,652/- out of the above Rs. 5,00,000/- and a 3rd return was filed on 31.3.84 marked as Ext. 15. The total income was Rs. 6,43,390/-. I may add here that the assessment was completed on the basis of .these return and the society viz the partnership firm has cleared all the taxes etc. 4. In view of the above facts a complaint petition was filed by the Income Tax Officer and the present proceeding commenced which ended in acquittal as stated above. Except the income Tax Officer, PW 1 no other evidence was produced on behalf of the prosecution, whereas on behalf of the accused firm one independent witness as produced to show the circumstances under which revised return was filed voluntarily. 5. This being an appeal against acquittal, this Court is quite conscious of the self imposed restrictions in such appeal. I may state here that in such appeal if two views are possible, the view in favour of the accused has to be accepted and that apart, the impugned judgment and order can be interfered with only if it is perverse or based on no evidence on record. In this con­nection, Mr. Gogoi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused respondent has placed reliance in two decisions of the Apex Court in Ashok Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan, (1991) 1 SCC 166 , more particularly to para 12 and Shamkang vs. State of Rajasthan, (1992) Snpp (2) SCC 521 (para 30) The Apex Court in the above two decisions has reiterated the well settled Jaw regarding appreciation of an appeal against acquittal by a higher Court. 6. Heard also Mr. Talukdar, learned counsel for the appellant. I have perused the judgment of the learned trial Court. I find from the judgment that learned trial Court has considered the entire material on record including the sanction for prosecution and by a reasoned judgment has acquitted the above accused persons. I agree with Mr. Gogoi that on going through the judgment a second view against the accused persons is not at all tenable. On this ground alone, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 7. To bring home a charge under section 276C of the Income Tax Act, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove that the accused wilfully of tempted in any manner whatsoever to evade any tax, penalty etc. On this ground alone, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 7. To bring home a charge under section 276C of the Income Tax Act, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove that the accused wilfully of tempted in any manner whatsoever to evade any tax, penalty etc. In other words, the burden is squarely on the prosecution to prove wilfull attempt to evade tax on the part of the accused. 8. Similarly, under section 277 of the Income Tax Act, the charge is said to be proved provided prosecution can establish that the verification as required under the above Act or rules framed thereunder of the account or statements is false and the accused knew or believed it to be false or did not believe it to be true. 9. Mr. Gogoi has fairly pointed out the provisions of section 278E of the Income Tax Act which was subsequently inserted in the Income Tax Act by the Amending Act of 1986 with effect from 10.9.86. This section is regarding presumption as to culpable mental state in a criminal trial under the Act. I accept the contention of Mr. Gogoi that as this section was inserted subsequent to the present prosecution the Income Tax Department is not entitled to get the benefit of the said provision. In other words, just like any other criminal case, in the present case also it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt. I make it clear that I am not entering in the effect of section 278E and I leave the matter open to be decided in future if any such occasion arise as to what extent the liability of the prosecution is relieved in such prosecution. 10. From the evidence of the independent witnesses and other witnesses on record I find that Ext. 1 and Ext. 6 were submitted under very unfortunate circumstances which has been rightly pointed out by the learned trial Court. Accused Sunandaram Deka, the senior most partner of the firm and father of the other accuseds was a very old person and his demeanour has been recorded by the learned trial Court stating, inter alia, that he could not even stand properly in the Court being an aged and old person. Accused Sunandaram Deka, the senior most partner of the firm and father of the other accuseds was a very old person and his demeanour has been recorded by the learned trial Court stating, inter alia, that he could not even stand properly in the Court being an aged and old person. That apart, during the period in question, the first two* person who were actually running the business viz late Kulen, the then partner of the firm and the Accountant Loknath Dey who was working about 15 years died prior to the filing of return. The firm appointed one Jatin Choudhury as Manager-cum-Accountant, but he committed some anomalies and therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly taken into account the above facts regarding revised return Ext. 6 which was filed voluntarily. 11. It is not necessary to burden the judgment by elaborate discussion recorded be the learned trial Court, I accept the findings of the learned trial Court that the prosecution has measurably failed to show that who was Manager of the business of the firm as required under section 278B of the Income Tax Act and that apart, there was no wilfull attempt to evade tax or penalty on the part of any of the partners, more particularly, Sunandaram Deka in filing the return and also signing the verification etc. was not done knowing it to be false. In fact, I find that the accused persons have taken a very fair steps of a honest businessman by admitting a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/-and odd for adding in the total income for the purpose of assessment. 12. According to the firm a sum of Rs. 5,00,QOO/- was borrowed from M/s Malchand Motilal Kothari, Guwahati and a copy of the same was also furnished to the Income Tax Officer. But prosecution wants to bring home the charge only on the ground that the said firm did not send any confirma­tion letter and that on the basis of the letter from the Income Tax Officer, Guwahati, it is tried to establish that there was evasion of tax. The letter from the Income Tax Officer was not produced. The -recounts of the said firm Malchand Matilal Kothari filed before the Income Tax Officer, Guwahati was also not produced and therefore, merely on the statement of the Income Tax Officer in a criminal proceeding the above charges cannot be accepted to be proved. 13. The letter from the Income Tax Officer was not produced. The -recounts of the said firm Malchand Matilal Kothari filed before the Income Tax Officer, Guwahati was also not produced and therefore, merely on the statement of the Income Tax Officer in a criminal proceeding the above charges cannot be accepted to be proved. 13. Regarding the sanction for the prosecution Ext. 20, the learned trial Court has rightly held that there was no application of mind by the sanctioning authority, inasmuch as, the relevant papers were not produced including the file in question and I do not find any ground to interfere with the said finding. For what has been stated above, I hold that the present appeal has no merit and accordingly it is dismissed.