M/S. MANILAL GUPTA & COMPANY & OTHERS Vs. SHRI L. NAMPUI, INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ASSESSMENT RANGE II, GUWAHATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed for quashing the criminal proceedings in Case No. 10 C/84 pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dibrugarh and also for setting aside the order dated 17.7.85 passed fay him.

(2.) Sri L. Nampui, Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of the Income Tax, Assessment If, Guwahati, filed a complaint in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate to initiate trial against the petitioners under sections 276 (c) and 277 of the Income Tax Act (for short the Act). On receipt of the aforesaid complaint the Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under the aforesaid sections and issued process.

(3.) The complainant stated, inter alia, that the first petitioner is a firm of which second to fourth petitioners are partners. The firm is an assessee under the Act. The assessee firm filed its return of income before the Income Tax Officer A Ward, Dibrugarh for assessment year 1976-77 on 30.11.76 and the said return was signed and verified by the second petitioner. In the return the assessee firm had shown to have received cash credit of Rs. 30,450.00 i.e. Rs. 29,000.00in cash and Rs. 1,450.00 as interest accrued thereon from Hanutram Sharma. This cash credit was entered on 1.4 75 in the bocks of account of the petitioner firm. The Income Tax Officer (for short the ITO) doubted the genuineness of the said entry and asked the petitioner firm to prove it, and in response to this the assessee firm filed a copy of the creditors account to confirm the receipt of the amount. The creditor was also an assessee within the jurisdiction of the said Income Tax Officer, A Ward, Dibrugarh. The ITO was not satisfied with it, and therefore, directed the assessee firm to establish the identity of the creditor and to prove the confirmed copy of the account filed by them. The assessee, however, failed to comply with the direction and thereby the ITO found that the assessee failed to substantiate his claim about the receipt of money as claimed.