VINOD KUMAR Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these petitions (Cr. M. Ps. (M) Nos. 1023 and 1024 of 1988) are being disposed of by a common judgment as these involve identical facts and questions of law and the parties are also the same.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (Main) No. 1023 of 1988 are that pro forma respondent No. 3, Naubat Rai, who was Karyana dealer at ]oginder Nagar, filed his income-tax return for the year 1971-72 with the Income-tax Officer, Mandi. He had shown in his income-tax return rental income of Rs. 3,500 net from his building alleged to be let out to his son, Vinod Kumar, the petitioner. It was also the case of Naubat Rai that in the said building his son, Vinod Kumar, was running a hotel in the name and style of Messrs. Tourist Hotel. But from the evidence, the Income-tax Officer found that Naubat Rai, the assessee, was himself running the hotel and in order to conceal his income from the hotel business and evade tax, he had put up the false plea of giving the building on rent to his son, Vinod Kumar. Accordingly, the Income-tax Officer assessed the income from the hotel business at Rs. 35,000 and added the same to the income of Naubat Rai by his assessment order dated September 23, 1974. He also gave a penalty notice under Section 274/271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), for concealment of particulars of income, to Naubat Rai.

(3.) THEREAFTER, the Income-tax Officer, Mandi, filed a complaint against Naubat Rai, Vinod Kumar and one Nanak Chand under Sections 277 and 278 of the Act read with Sections 193, 177 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code. Besides the above-stated facts, it was alleged in the complaint that on further enquiry, the rent deed dated April 1, 1970, executed by Naubat Rai in favour of his son, Vinod Kumar, and witnessed by Nanak Chand was found fabricated, inasmuch as, on the date of its execution, i.e., April 1, 1970, the non-judicial stamp papers on which it was written were not printed and issued for sale by the India Security Press, Nasik. On the facts alleged in the complaint, Naubat Rai was accused of the offences under Section 277 of the Act read with Sections 193, 177 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code, and his son, Vinod Kumar, and one Nanak Chand of offences under Section 278 of the Act read with Sections 193, 177 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code. This complaint was filed on the authorisation order dated March 13, 1981, of the then Income-tax Commissioner, Patiala.