INCOME TAX OFFICER Vs. K A SIDDIQUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Krishna Saran Shrivastav, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the Special Judge for Economic Offences, Hyderabad, in C.C. No. 125 of 1988, dated 13/04/1995, whereby the respondent accused has been acquitted under sections 276C(1) and 277 of the Income-tax Act.

(2.) The appellant-complainant laid a complaint against the respondent-accused alleging that he carried on business under the name and style Siddique Associates and had not filed the income-tax return for the assessment year 1985-86 within the prescribed time, but had filed the same only when noticed under section 142(1) of the Income-tax Act (for short "the Act"), on 31/03/1986, declaring an income of Rs. 7,606. In this return, professional receipts were shown to be Rs. 4,13,530 including the receipt of an amount of Rs. 50,000 from Dillu Cine Enterprises (P.) Ltd. of which company he himself was the managing director. It was found in the assessment proceedings of Dillu Cine Enterprises (P.) Ltd. that actually an amount of Rs. 1,00,000 was paid to the respondent-accused under the head "building account additions". When explanation was sought, the respondent-accused replied that, on 18/04/1984, he had transferred his share of Dillu Cine Enterprises (P.) Ltd. to one Mr. P.K. Ramaiah and before that he did not charge his fees as an architect being its shareholder and the managing director but at the time of changing over of the management, he demanded his fees of Rs. 1,00,000 out of which Rs. 50,000 was paid to him in cash on 3/04/1984, and an amount of Rs. 50,000 was credited in the account of his proprietorship concern styled as K.A. Siddique and Associates and only on receiving the advice, the remaining amount of Rs. 50,000 was to become taxable and, therefore, it was not shown in the relevant return. He filed a revised statement of income showing the said amount of Rs. 50,000. He was assessed accordingly but the explanation was not accepted by the complainant-Income-tax Officer and for suppressing the income of Rs. 50,000 and for falsely verifying the return of income-tax he was prosecuted under sections 276C(1) as also 277 of the Income-tax Act.

(3.) Charges under sections 276C(1) and 277 of the Income-tax Act were framed against the respondent-accused who denied the guilt and claimed to be tried.