Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1103 (MP)

Union of India v. Birdi Bai Garg

2002-12-17

S.B.SAKRIKAR

body2002
JUDGMENT This order shall govern the disposal of the aforesaid two appeals filed on behalf of Union of India respectively against the order dtd. 24..11.1992 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Economic Offence, Indore in Criminal Case No. 57/90 and Criminal Case No. 56/90 whereby the accused respondent was acquitted of the offence under S. 276(C) of the Income Tax Act (for short the Act). For both the aforesaid appeals the facts in brief are that -- The respondent assessee filed returns of her income for the Assessment Years 1985-86 and 1986-87 on 31.3.1997 showing her income respectively Rs. 16,676/- and Rs. 19,890/- for the aforesaid period. The assessment was completed on 21.7.1987 and thereafter a notice under S. 148 of the Act was issued to the respondent -- assessee, as it was found that the assessee has not disclosed the income received by her by way of rent from the house property of Rs. 40,000/-. In reply to the aforesaid notice, the assessee filed additional returns for both the assessment years, offering to pay the tax on the income received by way of rent from the house property. The Assessing Officer opined that the assessee has deliberately concealed the income from the house property for the Assessment Years 1985-86 and 1986-87, with the intention to escape from the payment of tax on the said income. The Assessing Officer, imposed a penalty of Rs. 20,000/and Rs. 15,000/- respectively for the Assessment years 85-86 and 86-87 under S. 271 (c) of the Act and also filed a complaint before the trial Court for initiating prosecution against the respondent assessee for the offence under S. 276(c) of the Act. It also emerged from the record that the respondent assessee aggrieved by the order of the A.O. imposing penalty of Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 15000/- filed appeals before the CIT which were dismissed. The assessee preferred appeals against the orders of the CIT to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench and the Appellate Tribunal by the order dtd. 21.11.1994 allowed the appeals filed on behalf of the respondent assessee and set aside the orders of the lower Tribunal imposing penalty on the assessee under S. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee preferred appeals against the orders of the CIT to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench and the Appellate Tribunal by the order dtd. 21.11.1994 allowed the appeals filed on behalf of the respondent assessee and set aside the orders of the lower Tribunal imposing penalty on the assessee under S. 271(1)(c) of the Act. In the light of the said facts, the learned Court below on evaluation of the evidence adduced by the parties in the respective climinal cases, by the impugned orders acquitted the accused respondent of the offence under S. 276(C) of the Act. Aggrieved the appellant has filed these two appeals under S. 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Leave to appeal as prayed, was granted in both the appeals vide order dtd. 3.12.1998 by this Court. I have heard Shri RL Jain, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri HS Oberai, learned of. Counsel with Shri P. Prasad for the respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent relying on the decision of this Court in case of Sureshchandra Gupta v. Union of India ( 1998 (1) MPLJ 49 ) has submitted that the matter in controversy in the aforesaid appeals stands resolved by the aforesaid decision of this Court based on the decision of the Apex Court in case of G.L. Didwwallia v. I.T.O. (224 ITR 687). As such, no grounds are made out for reversal of the impugned judgment acquitting the respondent of the offence under S. 276(C) of the Act. Considering the submission of the learned counsel and on perusal of the record as also the decision of this Court in case of Sureshchandra Gupta (supra), I find that in the instant case also the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has set aside the order of penalty holding that the case of deliberate concealment of the income is not made out. In view of the aforesaid finding of the Tribunal, the very foundation of the prosecution of the respondent accused, stands demolished. In the result, the two appeals filed on behalf of the appellant, deserves the fate of dismissal and they are accordingly dismissed. Accused respondent is recording her presence in the trial Court on bail. Her bail bonds stand cancelled. A copy of this judgment be placed on the record of the connected Cr. R. 623/90.