INCOME TAX OFFICER Vs. KESHO RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS the facts of Criminal Revisions Nos. 166 and 167 of 1990 are the same, they are disposed of by this order.

(2.) THE brief facts are that the firm, M/s. Sat Pal Tarsem Lal, Desi Wine Contractors, Bhawanigarh, in the financial year 1975-76 had shown a bogus credit of Rs. 10,000 in the name of Ram Nath. In order to prove the genuineness of this credit, the firm filed an affidavit dated April 14, 1977, purported to have been signed by Ram Nath before the Income-tax Officer and produced a person purported to be Ram Nath before him. THE Income tax Officer cross-examined Ram Nath and he was cross-examined by counsel for the firm. Ram Nath signed his statement. THE said firm also filed an affidavit purported to have been signed by Ram Nath before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Patiala.

(3.) MR. A.K. Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner, has referred to an unreported judgment of this court in ITO v. Emerson Paul Plastic Co. (since reported in [1991] 191 ITR 560) (Criminal Misc. Nos. 2467-M and 2648-M of 1987) decided by A.P. Chowdhri J., on February 25, 1991, and submits that the facts of this judgment squarely apply to the facts of these cases. The relevant portion of ITO v. Emerson Paul Plastic Co. [1991] 191 ITR 560, is as under (at page 563) :