| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1982 SLG 1043 1982 SLD 1043 (1982) 136 ITR 861 |
Orissa High Court
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 237 OF 1976 MARCH 4, 1977
B.K. RAY, J
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 237 OF 1976 MARCH 4, 1977
B.K. RAY, J
"Bijayananda Patnaik v. Union of India"
Law:
Section:
Section 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Offence and prosecution - Wilful attempt to evade tax, etc. - Assessment year 1964-65 - Whether mere submission of a verified return containing a false statement does not by itself constitute an offence but prosecution has further to show that false statement is made knowing it to be false or under belief that it is not true - Held, yes - Whether, where petitioner/assessee did not disclose incomes from salary and house property in return of income having been signed and verified by him, but later on filed an application before ITO disclosing incomes from aforesaid sources before assessment order was passed and, on that basis only, incomes from those sources were included in assessee's total income, it could not be said that omission to state said incomes in return was intentional, and consequently, trial court was justified in discharging assessee - Held, yes FACTS The ITO filed a complaint under section 277 against the petitioner. The case made out in the complaint was that the petitioner had filed a return for the assessment year 1964-65 showing an income of Rs. 96,001.28 as income from other sources; that against the column 'salaries and house property' the petitioner had shown his income to be 'nil'; that the statement made by the petitioner against that column was false, because he had not shown his income from his house property and had not mentioned his income as M.L.A., which was Rs. 1,420 and that this return filed by the petitioner having been signed and verified by him, an offence under section 277 was alleged to have been committed. The defence of the petitioner during trial was that the omission to mention his income from house property and salary as M.L.A. was an inadvertent mistake; that the assessing authority was informed of that omission by an application and that the assessment order was passed on the basis of such information and, therefore, no offence had been committed under section 277. The Trial Magistrate discharged the petitioner under section 253(1). Criminal Procedure Code (Old) without framing a charge against him under section 277 for want of sufficient materials. The Additional Sessions…
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