High Court Of Madhya Pradesh : Indore Bench
Union Of India vs. Smt. Birdibai Garg
Sections 276C
Asst. Year 1985-86, 1986-87
S.B. Sakrikar, J.
Criminal Appeal Nos. 621 & 623 of 1993
17th December, 2002
Counsel Appeared
R.L. Jain, for the Appellant : H.S. Oberoi with P.Prasad, for the Respondent
JUDGMENT
S.B. Sakrikar, J. :
This order shall govern the disposal of the aforesaid two appeals filed on behalf of Union of India respectively against the order dt. 24th Nov., 1992, passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Economic Offence, Indore in Criminal Case No. 57/1990 and Criminal Case No. 56/1990 whereby the accused-respondent was acquitted of the offence under s. 276C 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 asst. yrs. 1985-86 and 1986-87 on 31st March, 1997, showing her income respectively Rs. 16,676 and Rs. 19,890 for the aforesaid period. The assessment was completed on 21st July, 1997 and thereafter a notice under s. 148 of the Act was issued to the respondentassessee, 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 AO opined that the assessee has deliberately concealed the income from the house property for the asst. yrs. 1985-86 and 1986-87, with the intention to escape from the payment of tax on the said income. The AO, imposed a penalty of Rs. 20,000 and Rs. 15,000 respectively for the asst. yr. 1985-86 and 1986-87 under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and also filed a complaint before the trial Court for initiating prosecution against the respondentassessee for the offence under s. 276C of the Act. It also emerged from the record that the respondent-assessee aggrieved by the order of the AO imposing penalty of Rs. 20,000 and Rs. 15,000 filed appeals before the CIT(A) which were dismissed. The assessee preferred appeals against the order of the CIT(A) to the Tribunal, Indore Bench, and the Tribunal by the order dt. 21st Nov., 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 criminal cases, by the impugned orders acquitted the accused-respondent of the offence under s. 276C of the Act. Aggrieved, the appellant has filed these two appeals under s. 378 of the Cr.PC. Leave to appeal as prayed, was granted in both the appeals vide order dt. 3rd Dec., 1998, by this Court. I have heard Shri R.L. Jain, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, and Shri H.S. Oberai, learned senior 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 vs. Union of India (1998) 148 CTR (MP) 218 : 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. Didwania & Anr. vs. ITO & Anr. (1997) 140 CTR (SC) 273 : (1997) 224 ITR 687 (SC). As such, no grounds are made out for reversal of the impugned judgment acquitting the respondent of the offence under s. 276C 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 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 Crl. Rev. No. 623/1990.
[Citation : 260 ITR 389]