Judgment :- A. RAMAMURTHI, J. The Income-tax Officer, Vellore/complainant, has preferred the appeal against the order of acquittal passed in C. C. No. 236 of 1986, dated May 5, 1989, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-I, Vellore, North Arcot District The case of the complainant is as follows : The first accused is a partnership firm doing business in books and stationery. Accused Nos. 2 to 4 are the partners in the firm. The fifth. accused is running a proprietary concern in the name of Jupiter Rolling and Binding Works. The sixth accused is a part-time accountant employed by the fifth accused. The first accused firm filed its return of income for the assessment year 1984-85, declaring its income for the previous year ending March 31, 1984, at Rs. 38, 960. The return was filed on January 4, 1985, and it was verified and signed by the second accused for and on behalf of the partnership concern. The return was accompanied by the power of attorney executed by the second accused in favour of Thiru V. D. Janakiraman, Income-tax Practitioner, Vellore. The books of account of the first accused firm were called for and examined. It was found that the firm had allegedly borrowed Rs. 20, 000 on March 2, 1984, and Rs. 10, 000 on March 13, 1984, from one Shri S. Dharmaraj, son of Subramaniam Chettiar, proprietor, Balaji Stores, Long Bazaar, Vellore. These amounts were shown to have been returned within a day or two after the borrowal. When the enquiries were conducted with Thiru Dharmaraj, he denied having advanced amounts to the accused firm on those dates and when this was put to the first accused firm and its partners, they were unable to produce any evidence in support of the alleged credits. The examination of books of account and the statements showed that the first accused firm had to pay an amount of Rs. 34, 296.58 to Jupiter Rolling and Binding Works, a proprietary concern run by the fifth accused. The Income-tax Officer called for and examined the books of account of this firm after issuing summons to the fifth accused under section 131 of the Income-tax Act. The ledger account in folio No. 57 tallied with the accounts of the first accused firm. 34, 296.58 to Jupiter Rolling and Binding Works, a proprietary concern run by the fifth accused. The Income-tax Officer called for and examined the books of account of this firm after issuing summons to the fifth accused under section 131 of the Income-tax Act. The ledger account in folio No. 57 tallied with the accounts of the first accused firm. However, examination of the day book showed that entries in various pages of the day book has been scored and such entries had been substituted by the entries of postal expenses of small amounts. The original entries were made in folio Nos. 53, 54, 55 of the ledger but were later on removed and substituted by entries in page 57 of the fabricated ledger. The fifth accused admitted that the entries of receipt of money from the first accused firm on various dates were erased and substituted. He also admitted that the third accused came to him and requested him to credit the entries, so that the final balance would tally with the amounts shown in the books of the first accused firm. These erasures were done by the fifth accused through the sixth accused who is his part-time accountant, at the request of the third accused. The sixth accused also admitted that these corrections were done by him at the instance of the third accused and the fifth accused. The payments made by the first accused firm through the fifth accused to the extent of Rs. 29, 516 had not been recorded and accounted for in the books of the first accused. The original ledger entries in the books of the fifth accused had been removed, another ledger account had been written to make the final balance tally with the figures. The first accused firm and its partners could not explain the discrepancies and attempted to put the blame on the accountant. However, a revised return showing an income of Rs. 99, 464 was filed on March 14, 1985, and the same was signed by the fourth accused. The assessment was completed on March 20, 1985, on an income of Rs. 1, 00, 880 by the Income-tax Officer. However, a revised return showing an income of Rs. 99, 464 was filed on March 14, 1985, and the same was signed by the fourth accused. The assessment was completed on March 20, 1985, on an income of Rs. 1, 00, 880 by the Income-tax Officer. It is clear that acting in collusion and conspiracy and with a view to defraud the exchequer of its legitimate revenue, and to mislead and to deceive the Income-tax Officer, the accused have committed offences punishable under sections 120B, 193, 196, 201, 204, 468 and 471, 420 read with section 511 of the Indian Penal Code and section 276C (1), 277 and 278B of the Income-tax ActThe prosecution examined four witnesses. P. W. 1, K. V. Srinivasan, was working as the Income-tax Officer at Vellore during 1984-85. Exhibit P-1 is the sanction order given for prosecution. For the year 1984-85 on behalf of the first accused firm, the return was presented under exhibit P-2 on January 4, 1985, showing the income of Rs. 38, 960. They also produced the day book as well as parade. The date was fixed for the purpose of enquiry. There were entries in pages 137 and 240 for a sum of Rs. 34, 296.58 is due and payable by the first accused firm to one Jupiter Rolling and Binding Works. Summons were issued to the fifth accused who is the proprietor of the company. He also produced the day book and parade, etc. The day book is exhibit P-6 and the parade is exhibit P-7 relating to the fifth accused. The entries in various pages were scored out and there were erasures and alterations. In exhibit P-7 pages 53 and 55 and also pages 57 and 58, entries were made. When the fifth accused was enquired with reference to the discrepancy, he stated that at the request of the third accused only, they were made and exhibit P-8 is the statement given by him. The sixth accused also gave a statement under exhibit P-9. Exhibit P-10 is the communication sent by one Dharmaraj to show that he had no transactions whatsoever with the first accused firm. Exhibit P-11 is the day book for the period March 1, 1984, to March 31, 1984. Exhibit P-12 is the parade. Later the accused filed a revised return on March 14, 1985, signed by the third accused. Exhibit P-10 is the communication sent by one Dharmaraj to show that he had no transactions whatsoever with the first accused firm. Exhibit P-11 is the day book for the period March 1, 1984, to March 31, 1984. Exhibit P-12 is the parade. Later the accused filed a revised return on March 14, 1985, signed by the third accused. The statement signed by the auditor was also enclosed wherein, the income was shown as Rs. 1, 00, 880. Exhibit P-14 is the assessment order. P.W.-2, Chokkalingam, worked as the Income-tax Inspector and on the instructions of P.W-1 he interrogated Jupiter Rolling and Binding Works and also Dharmaraj Book Sellers. Thiru Dharmaraj in his statement under exhibit P-10 stated that he had no transactions whatsoever with the-first accused firmP.W.-3, Raghavan, a sales tax practitioner, examined the fifth accused and has also gave a confession statement attested by the witnesses. P. W-4, Dharmaraj, is selling groceries in his shop at Vellore and according to him, he had absolutely no connection whatsoever with the first accused firm and exhibit P-10 is the covering letter given by him. The court below framed charges under sections 193 (2 counts), 196 (2 counts), 201, 204, 471, 120B, 420 read with section 511 and sections 276C (1), 277 against accused Nos. 1 to 4, under sections 193 (2 counts), 196 (2 counts), 201, 204, 471, 120B, 420 read with section 511 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 276C(1) and 277 (2 counts) of the Income-tax Act, against the second accused, under sections 193 (2 counts), 196 (2 counts), 201, 204, 471, 120B, 468 and 420 read with section 511 of the Indian Penal Code, under sections 276C(1) and 277 of the Income-tax Act, against the third accused and under sections 193, 196, 201, 204, 471, 120B, 468 of the Indian Penal Code and under sections 277 and 278 of the Income-tax Act against the fifth accused under sections 193, 196, 201, 204, 471, 120B and 428 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 278 of the Income-tax Act against the sixth accused were framed and they pleaded not guilty. The complainant examined P.Ws.-1 to 4 and marked exhibits P-1 to P-14 and no witness was examined on the side of the accused and no document was also marked. The complainant examined P.Ws.-1 to 4 and marked exhibits P-1 to P-14 and no witness was examined on the side of the accused and no document was also marked. The learned Magistrate gave a finding that the accused were not guilty of the offences with which they were charged and acquitted under section 248(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Aggrieved against this, the complainant has come forward with the present appeal. The learned advocate for the complainant stated that a return was given by the first accused firm on January 4, 1985, and there were entries to show that a sum of Rs. 20, 000 and Rs. 10, 000 were borrowed from another concern and later on enquiry, the Department came to know that there was no such transaction and moreover there were also entries in the accounts of the first accused firm that the amounts were returned within a day or two after the borrowals. Similarly there were also erasures and alterations in the account books of the fifth accused firm and subsequently a ledger has been created and false entries were made in page 57. Statement of the fifth accused was also recorded by the Department officers. The sixth accused was working as a part-time accountant and his statement was also recorded. The statement given by accused Nos. 5 and 6 only indicated that this alteration and erasure were made only at the instigation of the partners of the first accused firm. Subsequently, a revised return was given on March 14, 1985, and it was signed by the fourth accused. The assessment was completed on March 20, 1985, and the income was taken for the purpose of assessment at Rs. 1, 00, 880Learned counsel further pointed out that section 139(5) of the Income-tax Act, is not applicable since no new discovery was made by the accused, but on the other hand only after knowing fully well that the Income-tax Department has made thorough enquiry and after coming to know that false entries were made, the accused were driven to the necessity of filing a revised return. The learned advocate for the accused stated that the original return was made on January 4, 1985, and the revised return was made within a period of two months, namely, March 14, 1985. The statements said to have been recorded from accused Nos. The learned advocate for the accused stated that the original return was made on January 4, 1985, and the revised return was made within a period of two months, namely, March 14, 1985. The statements said to have been recorded from accused Nos. 5 and 6 will not affect the other accused in the case because a confession statement given by the co-accused cannot be made use of against the other accused. There is absolutely no evidence of conspiracy. There is also no evidence to show who was in actual charge of the administration of the first accused firm. Furthermore, the fifth accused is the sole proprietor of a concern and the sixth accused was only a part-time accountant. There was absolutely no mens rea on the part of the accused to file a revised return and in short, there was no wilful evasion of any tax. It is further stated that the party is entitled to file a revised return till the assessment was completed and under the circumstances, the accused cannot be made liable for any of the offences. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the first accused has filed the return of income for the assessment year 1984-85 on January 4, 1985. The return was signed by the second accused for and on behalf of the partnership concern. It was found out from the books of account that the firm had allegedly borrowed Rs. 20, 000 on March 2, 1984, and Rs. 10, 000 on March 13, 1984, from one Shri Dharmaraj and it was returned within a day or two. On an enquiry with Dharmaraj, they came to know that no such amount was advanced to the first accused firm on those dates. Furthermore, the first accused firm had to pay an amount of Rs. 34, 296.58 to Jupiter Rolling and Binding Works, a proprietary concern run by the fifth accused, as per the books of account. The Department issued summons to the fifth accused and examination of the day book showed that entries in various pages of the day book had been revised and such entries had been substituted. The fifth accused also admitted that the entries of receipt of money from the first accused firm on various dates were erased and substituted. He also admitted that the third accused came to him and requested him to create the entries. The fifth accused also admitted that the entries of receipt of money from the first accused firm on various dates were erased and substituted. He also admitted that the third accused came to him and requested him to create the entries. These erasures were done by the fifth accused through the sixth accused who was his part-time accountant, at the request of the third accused. The statements from accused Nos. 5 and 6 were also recordedLearned counsel for the accused stated that whatever statement was taken from the co-accused cannot be made use of against other accused. The prosecution witnesses were not able to show who were actually in charge of administration of the firm. No doubt the second accused had signed the first return of income and the fourth accused had signed the revised return of income on March 14, 1985. They also claimed benefit under section 139(5) of the Income-tax Act. It is quite probable that the other concerns may not have included the amount in their account because they would also be assessed to income-tax. Simply because there are erasures or alterations, it cannot be concluded that the accounts are false and there was concealment of income. Moreover, within a period of two months the revised return has been filed on coming to know of certain mistakes. Learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that the revised return has been made within a period of two months knowing fully well that the Department had enquired Dharmaraj and the fifth accused and they have also recorded the statements and only thereafter, the revised return was filed, This being so, definitely they can be held liable for the offences. However it may be, the part played by the third accused has not been specifically stated. Moreover, the fifth accused is the proprietor of a different concern and he had given a statement that apart from Rs. 4, 750 no amount is due and payable. The sixth accused was only a part-time accountant and it is not known how he has also been included as an accused in the case. Learned counsel attempted to point out that the sixth accused wrote the accounts on the instructions of the fifth accused and the fifth accused has been instructed by the third accused. There is no record to show that the statements recorded from accused Nos. Learned counsel attempted to point out that the sixth accused wrote the accounts on the instructions of the fifth accused and the fifth accused has been instructed by the third accused. There is no record to show that the statements recorded from accused Nos. 5 and 6 were also known to the other accused and therefore, they were driven to the necessity of filing a revised return on March 14, 1985Learned counsel for the appellant relied on the case of Kuldip Rai Chopra, ITO v. Sohan Singh Dhiman wherein it is observed as follows: "Section 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, lays down that if a person makes a statement in any verification under the Act, or delivers an account or statement which is false, he may be punished with the penalties as prescribed in the section. The section, however, contains some crucial words in regard to the mens rea of the assessee, viz., 'and which he either knows or believes to be false, or does not believe to be true'. The intention of the Legislature in incorporating these words in the section is quite obviously that a prosecution would not follow in every case where a wrong statement is made and it will have to be judged as to whether the assessee harboured the required mens rea or not. Held further, that in an appeal against acquittal the High Court cannot be called upon to reassess the credibility of the evidence, when the view taken by the trial court was not shown to be so patently erroneous as to cause miscarriage of justice." This decision is clearly applicable to the facts on hand. It cannot be automatically concluded that whenever a revised return was filed by a firm, necessarily they should be prosecuted for an offence relating to concealment of income. There should have been sufficient mens rea to find out whether there was any intention on his part to conceal the income. No doubt the income-tax authorities have chosen to verify the accounts of the first accused firm relating to some of the entries but however within a period of two months, they had filed the revised return. Learned counsel for the appellant also relied on the case of S. Vasudeva Rao v. P. S. J. Sigamany relating to quashing of a prosecution under the Income-tax Act. Learned counsel for the appellant also relied on the case of S. Vasudeva Rao v. P. S. J. Sigamany relating to quashing of a prosecution under the Income-tax Act. This decision has no application to the facts on hand for the simple reason that in that case there was a search operation under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and substantial unaccounted stock representing corals and pearls were seized and the same was estimated at Rs. 2, 50, 000. The petitioner filed a return of income for the assessment year 1981-82 on October 27, 1982, admitting a total income of Rs. 1, 89, 720 and a revised return of income was filed on August 3, 1983, fearing departmental action, declaring a total income of Rs. 3, 29, 750. This would only indicate that the original return was filed on October 27, 1982, but whereas a revised return was filed long thereafter and also search operation even before thatSection 139(5) reads as follows: "If any person, having furnished a return under sub-section (1), or in pursuance of a notice issued under sub-section (1) of section 142, discovers any omission or any wrong statement therein, he may furnish a revised return at any time before the expiry of one year from the end of the relevant assessment year or before the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier. Provided that where the return relates to the previous year relevant to the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1988, or any earlier assessment year, the reference to one year aforesaid shall be construed as a reference to two years from the end of the relevant assessment year." It is manifestly clear that section 139(5) is applicable to the present case. As adverted to the revised return has been filed within a period of two months. Moreover, the language employed under section 139(5) indicated that it is open to the assessee to file a revised return before the expiry of one year from the end of the relevant assessment year or before the completion of the assessment. The assessment in the present case was completed only on March 20, 1985, but the assessee filed the revised return even on March 14, 1985. The court below had rightly come to the conclusion that section 139(5) is applicable to the case of the accused. The assessment in the present case was completed only on March 20, 1985, but the assessee filed the revised return even on March 14, 1985. The court below had rightly come to the conclusion that section 139(5) is applicable to the case of the accused. Although new facts have not been discovered at the time of filing the revised return, whenever any wrong statement had already been made, an opportunity was given under the Act, to the assessee to correct the same before the completion of the assessment and this has been well utilised by the first accused firm in this case. Simply because the income-tax authorities had made enquiries with reference to certain entries and thereafter the revised return was filed it could not be presumed that there was mens rea on the part of the accused firm to conceal the income and thereby they were constrained to file a revised return. There is absolutely no grave error in rejecting the evidence of the witnesses by the court below. The evidence adduced by the prosecution also did not establish that there was any mens rea on the part of the accused in concealment of the income. Whenever the accounts are being maintained, there is every possibility for erasures or alterations and this will not lead to any conclusion that the entire accounts are false. The fact that the sixth accused was included as one of the accused would only indicate that even the part-time accountant has not been spared and the action of the Department would only lead to dangerous consequences. The auditors and the chartered accountants who help or assist the firm in filing the revised return also can be made liable at one point of timeThe Department has failed to establish any mens rea on the part of the accused in the concealment of the income. The other sections pointed out by the Department also had no application to the facts and only if mens rea was established then only they can be made applicable. Furthermore, when an opportunity was given to the assessee under section 139(5) of the Income-tax Act, it has been made use of by the accused and, hence I am of the view that the court below has rightly come to the conclusion that the accused have not committed any offence. Furthermore, when an opportunity was given to the assessee under section 139(5) of the Income-tax Act, it has been made use of by the accused and, hence I am of the view that the court below has rightly come to the conclusion that the accused have not committed any offence. The evidence adduced before the court below has been properly appreciated and there was no miscarriage of justice and as such, I find no reasons to interfere with the judgment of acquittal. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.