INCOME TAX OFFICER Vs. DHARAMCHAND SURANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.I.), Madras-8, in E.O.C.C. No. 705 of 1983 for the offences under sections 193 and 420 read with section 511, Indian Penal Code, 1860, and section 276C of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

(2.) THE respondent was carrying on business in jewellery and he was also an assessee to income-tax. On September 16, 1976, P.W.-1, Inspector of Income-tax and other officials of the same department conducted a search in his residential premises No. 13/14, Kalmandapam Road, Madras, and seized certain records including exhibits P-2 to P-7 series which are separate sheets and exhibit P-8 account book relating to 1976-77 transactions. THE records revealed that exhibit P-8 was prepared to conceal the real income for the purpose of evading income-tax. A statement, exhibit P-18, was recorded from this respondent. Subsequently, the respondent gave exhibit P-19 statement also, in the office, admitting the suppression of income in the account book. Hence, he was prosecuted for fabrication of a document intentionally for the purpose of evading tax which acts are punishable under sections 193 and 420 read with section 511, Indian Penal Code, and section 276C, Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the Income-tax Department, Mr. Ramaswamy, would submit that in addition to the fact that the respondent prepared a fabricated account exhibit P-8 and when the same was seized by the Income-tax Department, he did not file the return also for more than four years. This conduct itself indicates that as his attempt to evade the income-tax by filing exhibit P-8 account was foiled by the seizure of the record, he did not file the return in time and from the documents seized from the respondent and also from his conduct, the attempt to cheat the Department by evading the tax and also the fabrication of the document is established and, therefore, the offences alleged against the respondent are proved in this case.