(1.) CRL . A. No. 1039/2007 and Crl. A. No. 1040/2007 are filed against the judgment made in Crl. A. No. 1389/2005 and Crl. A. No. 1390/2005 dated 05.02.2007. The respondent in Crl. A. No. 1040/2007 was arrayed as accused No. 1 and respondent in Crl. A. No. 1039/2007 was arrayed as accused No. 2 in C.C. No. 424/2002 and they were tried for contravention of Section 269 -UC punishable under Section 276 -AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). The Department of Income Tax represented by Judicial Member (Appropriate Authority) initiated a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. alleging the afore -stated offences against accused Nos. 1 and 2, inter alia contending that accused No. 1 being the owner of immovable property bearing No. 403 -A, New No. 39, 6th main, 13th cross, Malleswaram, Bangalore, to circumvent the provisions of Section 269 -UC had bifurcated the property into two portions and transferred eastern portion under a registered sale -deed dated 15.03.2001 to accused No. 2 for sale consideration of Rs. 20,50,000/ -. and again transferred western portion of the same property under a registered sale deed dated 18.04.2001 to accused No. 2 for sale consideration of Rs. 19,50,000/ - The accused No. 1 had purchased the aforesaid property under two registered sale deeds dated 05 02.1998 executed by one Srinivas and Ravishankar under total consideration of Rs. 45,00,000/ -. The accused No. 1 in the returns filed by her for the year 2000 -2001 had declared cost of acquisition of the entire property as a sum of Rs. 60,13,780/ -. Thus, accused Nos. 1 and 2 had entered into afore -stated sale transactions to violate provisions of Section 269 -UC. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 had bifurcated the property into two portions and shown the lesser sale consideration in the afore -stated two sale deeds and had committed an offence punishable under Section 276 -AB of the Act.
(2.) THE learned trial Judge on appreciation of evidence, has held the accused guilty of an offence punishable under Section 276 -AB of the Act and sentenced them to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/ - each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Therefore, accused Nos. 1 and 2 were before the 1st Appellate Court in Crl. A. No. 1389/2005 and Crl. A. No. 1390/2005.
(3.) THE learned judge of the I -appellate court following the judgment reported in 1991 Income Tax Reports Page 585 has held that there is no prohibition under the Act to divide or sub divide the property to transfer the property on different dates. The learned judge of the I -appellate court has held that evidence adduced by the Department is hardly sufficient to hold that accused No. 1 and 2 had entered into aforestated sale deeds to violate the provisions of Section 269UC of the Act.