V GOPAL Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused in C. C. Nos. 22, 23 and 24 of 1991 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences) Madurai, has filed these petitions under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, for quashing all further proceedings in the said C. C. Nos. 22, 23 and 24 of 1991.THE respondent has filed these three complaints against the petitioner for offences under sections 276C(1) and 277 of the Income-tax Act and under sections 193, 196 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, in respect of three assessment years 1980-81, 1981-82 and 1982-83, respectively. THE allegations in those complaints are similar. THEy are briefly as follows :THE complainant is the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax. He is a public servant and this complaint is instituted as such. THE complaint is filed with the previous sanction of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Madurai, under section 279 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. THE accused is an individual engaged in tailoring business. He had filed a return of income on August 29, 1980, for the assessment year 1980-81 admitting a total income of Rs. 20, 870. THE assessment was completed under section 143(3) on January 25, 1982, determining the total income of Rs. 26, 170. After the assessment was completed, there was a search under section 132 of the Income-tax Act in the premises of the assessee on October 5, 1982. During the course of the search, incriminating documents were seized. With the evidence of those seized materials, the Assessing Officer concluded that there was income that had escaped assessment.

(2.) THE Assessing Officer sent a notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act on March 9, 1984, to the accused, intimating the assessee about the escaped income. THE assessee filed a return of income on October 3, 1985, declaring again an income of Rs. 20, 870. He again filed a revised return of income on January 17, 1986, wherein he admitted a total income of Rs. 48, 814.

(3.) THIS argument did not find favour with the learned judges.In C. B. Gautam v. Union of India, the provisions of Chapter XX-C of the Act came up for consideration. The apex court had held that opportunity to be heard is to be given before making an order for purchase. The apex court had held that the aim of the rule of natural justice is to secure justice or to put it negatively to prevent miscarriage of justice.