Case Details

Citation(s)
2002 SLG 2539 2002 SLD 2539 (2002) 256 ITR 669
Madhya Pradesh High Court

S.L. KOCHAR, J.

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

Shadilal

v.

Union of India

Law:

Section:

Section 276C, read with section 277, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Offences and prosecution - Wilful attempt to evade tax, etc. - Assessment year 1982-83 - Sale consideration of truck sold by applicant was declared at Rs. 80,000 - On enquiry, department found same to be Rs. 1,30,000 - Subsequently, revised return was filed showing sale consideration at Rs. 1,30,000 - Proceedings under sections 276C and 277 were initiated against applicant and trial court convicted him - Applicant submitted that there was a settlement between him and purchaser that if applicant would have purchased new tyres for truck, in that situation, purchaser was required to pay Rs. 1,30,000 but since he did not purchase new tyres for said truck, he had received only Rs. 80,000 as consideration for sale of truck - Whether said submission was contrary to his revised return and it could not be said that he had no mens rea for evading tax - Held, yes - Whether facts that sale agreement was not filed and purchaser was not examined had no serious bearing on matter in controversy because applicant himself had filed two returns - Held, yes - Whether, therefore, there was no illegality, irregularity or perversity in sustaining conviction - Held, yes FACTS In the original return, the assessee had shown the sale of his truck for a consideration of Rs. 80,000. On inquiry by the department, it was found to be sold for Rs. 1,30,000. Thereafter, the assessee filed revised return wherein the sale of truck was shown at Rs. 1,30,000. The applicant was charged with offences under sections 276C and 277 before the trial court and his defence was that there was a settlement between him and purchaser that if the applicant would have purchased new tyres for the truck, in that situation, the purchaser was required to pay Rs. 1,30,000, but since he did not purchase new tyres, he had received only Rs. 80,000. The trial court after recording the evidence and hearing both the parties, found the applicant guilty of the aforesaid offences against which the applicant went up in appeal and the same was dismissed by the first appellate court. On revision petition : HELD The defence of the applicant that the purchaser was…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492