PREM DASS versus INCOME TAX OFFICER

Citation: [1999] 1 S.C.R. 507 · Decided: 09-02-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-1 
PREM DASS 
A 
v. 
INCOME TAX OFFICER 
FEBRUARY 9, 1999 
[G.B. PATTANAIK AND M.B. SHAH, JJ.] 
B 
• 
Income Tax Act 1961, ss. 276-C, 277 r/w 132 (4A)-Sessions Coult on 
appreciation of evidence reversing conviction awarded by trial coult and ac-
quitting appellant of offences of filing incorrect returns of income and with-
holding books of account-High Coult on re-appreciation of evidence and c 
applying the presumption under s. 132 (4A) reversing the Sessions 
Court-Held, ingredients of offences not established; presumption under s. 
132 ( 4A) cannot apply. 
Income Tax Act 1961, s 271(1)(c) r/w 279( JA)-Appellant charged with 
offences of filing incorrect returns of income and withholding books of D 
account-Income Tax Officer levying penalty-Appellate authority finding no 
concealment of income but that there was merely a difference of estimates 
and reducing penalty-High Coult reversing acquittal without considering 
effect of reduction of penalty-Held, High Coult not justified in interfering 
with acquittal; ought to have taken note of legislative intent behind s. 
E 
279( JA)-lnterpretation of Statutes. 
The Appellant was convicted under S. 276-C of the Income Tax Act, 
1961 ('Act') by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad on a .complaint 
that he had incorrectly made a verification on the income tax return for 
the Assessment Year 1980-81, and sentenced to six months' imprisonment F 
and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 in default to further imprisonment of three 
months. He was also convicted under S. 277 of the Act and sentenced to 
six months R.1 and the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The 
Sessions Judge after appreciating the evidence concluded that the charges 
were not only vague but the evidence was insufficient to infer criminal G 
intent of the appellant. The Sessions Judge took note of the fact that the 
~ 
appellate authority had, in an appeal by the appellant set aside the penalty 
imp.osed by the Income Tax Officer. Accordingly, the Sessions Judge 
allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant. 
The High Court, in allowing the department's appeal, reappraised H 
507 
508 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1999) 1 S.C.R. 
A the evidence of the Income Tax Officer, applied the presumption under S. 
132( 4A) of the Act, and reversed the order of acquittal passed by the 
Sessions Judge. 
B 
c 
D 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. The ingredients of the offences under Ss. 276-C and 277 
of the Income Tax Act were not established by the prosecution beyond 
reasonable doubt, and therefore, the appellant could not be convicted of 
the offences under the said Sections. [514-E] 
1.2. The High Court had not considered the reasons advanced by the 
Sessions Judge and had merely relied upon the presumption arising out 
of S. 132(4-A) of the Act in reversing the order of acquittal without 
reversing the finding arrived at by the Sessions Judge on the evidence on 
record. (512-C·D] 
1.3. There was nothing in S. 132(4-A) which would establish the 
ingredients of the offences under Ss. 276-C am! 277 of the Act. (514-E] 
2. Bearing in mind the legislative intent engrafted under S. 279 (1A) 
of the Act, the High Court was not justified in interfering with an acquittal. 
E That the Tribunal had totally set aside the order imposing penalty could 
not have been lost sight of by the High Court while considering the 
question whether the order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge had 
to be interfered with or not particularly, when the gravamen of indictment 
related to filing of incorrect return and making wrong verification of the 
statements filed in support of the return, resulting in initiation of penalty 
F proceedings. (514-G-H; 515-A] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
518 of 1992. 
G 
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.3.92 of the Punjab & 
Haryana High Court in Cr!. A. No. 99 DBA of 1989. 
V. Shekhar for the Appellant. 
K. N. Shukla, Rajiv Nanda, B.K. Prasad and P. Parmeswaran for the 
H Respondent. 
PREM DASS v. l.T.O. [PATTANAIK, J.] 
509 
~ 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
A 
PATIANAIK, J. The appellant was convicted under Section 276C 
of the Income Tax Act, on a complaint being filed that he had incorrectly 
made a verification on the income tax return for the Assessment Year 
1980-81. For his such conviction, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, 
Faridabad, sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for six months and to B 
pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.