LAWS(PAT)-1985-6-3

BALESHWAR PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

Decided On June 04, 1985
BALESHWAR PRASAD SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF BIHAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these applications have been heard together and will be governed by this common judgment. The sole petitioner in all the cases has been convicted under Section 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months in each case. He was also charged under Section 199 of the Indian Penal Code of which he has been acquitted.

(2.) SHORTLY stated, the prosecution case is that the petitioner filed returns under the Act for the assessment years 1961-62 to 1968-69 showing his status as Hindu undivided family and also treating the income of contract work, which he was doing as a contractor of the Public Works Department, as such, though the contract work was a partnership business along with two more persons, namely, Sri Baldeo Prasad Sahu and one Sri Laxmi Narain Gupta. The income derived from contract work should have been shown in the return as income from partnership business, which was not done. A dispute arose between the three partners and the matter was referred to arbitrators who gave their award on November 4, 1967, which was made a rule of the court.

(3.) FROM the facts of this case, it is abundantly clear that the petitioner, while at the time of filing the return, very well knew that the contract business was a partnership business with others and, therefore, it was his bounden duty to mention the income derived therefrom as income from partnership business. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that by making this omission, the petitioner was not in any way benefited. But, in my opinion, that is not a relevant consideration at all. Had there been no dispute and no award, probably the whole thing would have gone unnoticed and it was only after the dispute arose and the award was given that the petitioner knew the implication and became active and started filing petitions before the income-tax authorities. Mr. Bharuka has submitted that the statements made in the petition were done in an innocent manner in order to purchase peace; but it does not seem to be so innocent as it has been presented before me. The award was made on November 4, 1967, and even after that date, for the return for the year 1968-69, the partnership business was not shown in that return. The explanation, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be reasonable or probable and, therefore, the case of Adikanda Swain v. Emperor, AIR 1947 Pat 251, will have no application to this case.