NISAR BROTHERS Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Rajasthan, Jaipur, has charged the petitioners for the offences under ss. 276C and 277 of the IT Act, 1961, and this order has been challenged by the petitioners in this petition under S. 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It may be mentioned that the charge has been framed on two counts, viz., (i) that the petitioners concealed their income in respect of "tal" remaining with them in the process of manufacturing precious and semi -precious stones, and (ii) that the precious stones sold to one Abdul Wahab for Rs. 7,202 were not included in the stock register and in the income when an invoice showing the despatch of goods to him was recovered at the time of search of his premises. The charge on the second count has not been contested by the petitioners.

(2.) AS far as the first charge is concerned, it may be stated that the petitioners are carrying business of manufacturing precious and semi -precious stones. They purchase rough stones and the same are cut and ground them in order to manufacture stones which do not require any further processing. The case of the prosecution is that in this process a certain percentage of the rough stones is wasted and this waste is deducted as wastage. Besides this, certain stones of lesser value and lesser weight are also left and they are known as "tal". They are either sold as they are or they are again manufactured into small stones but the value of this "tal" is to be accounted for. The petitioners, when they were asked to furnish details, have only shown the weight of finished goods and the weight of the wastage but have not said anything about the "tal". According to the return, the income from "tal" has been concealed.

(3.) IT may be mentioned here that Shri Jagdeep Dhankar has argued this matter on previous dates. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that while cutting and grinding the rough stones there is some wastage and this wastage is to be excluded while arriving at the weight, which has been sold that there is no such separate thing as "tal" which can be said to fetch income. In the clarification submitted by the petitioners, no valuation has been assigned to any part of the wastage. This wastage has been shown between at 40 per cent and 50 per cent of the total weight. The complainant has examined witnesses in order to show that there is some material of value in between the finished product and the wastage, which goes away with the water in the business of manufacturing of precious and semi -precious stones and at present it cannot be said that there is no prima facie material for proceeding against the petitioners. The accused can be discharged only if it can be said that there is no ground for proceeding against him. This is not the position in the present case. The matter has been examined at length by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and there appears to be no reason to interfere with the order passed by him. This petition is dismissed.