Law:

Section:

Section 279, read with sections 276 and 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [Corresponding to section 53, read with sections 51 and 52 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922] - Offence and prosecution - Prosecution to be at instance of Chief Commissioner - Whether if there is a proceeding on a charge under section 51 or 52, it comes within purview of section 53 and a compounding of offence will be within section - Held, yes - Whether it would make no difference in authority of Assistant Commissioner to permit composition of offence under section 53 on basis that whether liability of a person arose under section 51 for failure to furnish return as required by section 51(c) or for making false statement in return as contemplated by section 52 as section 53 covers both offences under sections 51 and 52 - Held, yes FACTS 'P' and 'S' formed an HUF. Pursuant to a notice issued under section 23(2) by the ITO, the account books of the firm for 1924-29 were produced and 'P' was examined on oath by the ITO on 23-11-1930, in respect of certain omissions in the return. 'P' explained that the omission of an item was due to the fact that it was advanced from his own personal funds and had nothing to do with the joint family, while the omissions of other items of repayment by the debtors were due to the mistake of his agent. Not being satisfied with his explanation, the ITO recommended prosecution of 'P' and the Assistant Commissioner issued notice to him to show cause as to why his prosecution in respect of these omissions should not be sanctioned. 'P', proposed that the offence should be compounded under section 53 upon payment by him of Rs. 30,000 to the taxing authorities and this was agreed to by the Assistant Commissioner. The payment was made in two instalments and the matter was closed. In January 1934, the two cousins filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 30,000 and interest against the Secretary of State for India in Council. The ground of the claim was that statement of 'P', was incorrectly recorded and that the sum of Rs. 30,000 was extorted from him under a threat of legal proceedings which were without jurisdiction and that he had committed no offence. The plea that the…

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