Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Bathinda v. Pardeep Kumar And Another

CRR-1619-2015(O&M) -|- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH. CRR-1619-2015(0&M)Date of decision:-22.5.2018 Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Bathinda _.Petitioner Versus Pardeep Kumar and another ...Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR.JIUSTICEK H.S.MADA Mr.Saurav Khurana, DAG, Punjab, 7777 H.S. MADAAN, J. Complainant - Income Tax Officer,Ward-1(3), Bathinda hadfiled a complaint under Sections 276 C and 277 read with Section 278 Bof Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to asthe Acf) against M/sSharma Misthan Bhandar and others on the allegations that accused No.1was the registered partnership firm having accused Nos.2 and 3 as its CRR-1619-2015(O&M) -~) partners and filed its return of income on 31.8.1989 declaring total incomeat Rs.78,100/- for the assessment year 1989-90, which was duly signedand verified by Pardeep Kumar partner of the firm, accused No.2; that itwas accompanied by a declaration under Section 184(7) of the Act forcontinuation of registration of the firm in form No.12 duly signed andverified by accused Nos.2 and 3 and it was also accompanied with profitand loss account, trading account and balance sheet etc.; that the incomedeclared in the return was processed under Section 143(1)(a) on6.10.1989; that thereafter, the case of the assessee was taken up forscrutiny and during the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticedthat business premises of the assessee had been surveyed on 8.11.1983and certain discrepancies were noticed tor which accused No.2 oftered todisclose additional income of Rs.50,000/- on behalf of accused No.1 in itsreturn, but the said offer was not considered reasonable for the reason thatit did not commensurate with its real income, accordingly the offer givenby accused No.1 was declined; then the Assessing Officer issued a noticedated 9.10.1989; that in response to notice dated 9.10.1989, accused filedreply dated 11.12.1989 stating therein that no closing stock as on31.3.1989 was available and also disclosed that the details of purchase ofthe packing material and raw material was not available; that during theyear under consideration, accused constructed three storied building(shop) and cost of the construction was declared as Rs.1,25,000/-,however, it was referred to the valuation officer, who assessed the same asRs.1,59,600/-, thus, there was a different of Rs.34,600/-; that noSatisfactory reply was given; that Pardeep Kumar was shown to withdraw CRR-1619-2015(O&M) Rs.2,372/- and Som Dutt Rs.2,624/- for their household expenses; thatkeeping in view the size of the families and standard of living, thewithdrawal for the household expenses were found to be exceptionallylow and taking into consideration the above facts, the Assessing Officerassessed the income for the assessment year 1989-90 at Rs.1,50,000/- andpenalty proceedings w/S 271(1)(c) were ordered to be initiated vide videorder dated 29.3.1990 and aggrieved against the same, an appeal was filedby the accused before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), whichwas dismissed. Departmental proceedings of assessment in the income taxoffice had been going on. On a complaint having been filed, accused were summonedand they put in appearance and admitted to bail. During the pre-charge evidence, the complainant examinedITO Gopi Chand as CW1, who supported the case of complainant andRaghuvirsain Jain (ITO Retd.) as CW2. During the proceedings, accusedSom Dutt had died, as such proceedings against him stood abated.Regarding remaining accused, they were charge-sheeted under Section2/76-C read with Section 277 & 278(B) of the Act, to which, they pleadenot guilty and claimed trial. The trial Court had formulated the following points fordetermination, which are as under; 1) Whether accused Pardeep Kumar, is the partner ofaccused No.1 and has willfully attempted to evade thetax, penalty and interest chargeable, imposable under CRR-1619-2015(O&M) -4- the Income tax Act? During the pre-charge evidence, the complainant examinedITO Gopi Chand as CW1, who supported the case of complainant andRaghuvirsain Jain (ITO Retd.) as CW2. During the proceedings, accusedSom Dutt had died, as such proceedings against him stood abated.Regarding remaining accused, they were charge-sheeted under Section2/76-C read with Section 277 & 278(B) of the Act, to which, they pleadenot guilty and claimed trial. The trial Court had formulated the following points fordetermination, which are as under; 1) Whether accused Pardeep Kumar, is the partner ofaccused No.1 and has willfully attempted to evade thetax, penalty and interest chargeable, imposable under CRR-1619-2015(O&M) -4- the Income tax Act? 2) Whether the complainant has been able to prove itcase, as alleged? After hearing arguments, the trial Court convicted accusedPardeep Kumar for the offences under Sections 276-C, 277 and 278-B ofthe Act and sentenced him thereunder. Aggrieved by this judgment, accused Pardeep Kumar hadpreferred an appeal to the Court of Sessions, which was marked to learnedAdditional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Bathinda, who allowed theappeal and set aside the judgment/order dated 23.9.2011 passed by thetrial Magistrate. Being dissatisfied by the said judgment passed by learnedAdditional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Bathinda, the petitioner hasfiled the present revision petition, notice of which was issued to therespondents, who put in appearance through counsel. I have heard learned counsel for the parties besides goingthrough the record. The law is well settled that the revisional jurisdiction of thisCourt is quite limited. This Court is to interfere only if there is anillegality or infirmity apparent on the face of the judgment/order passedby a Court below or the same is perverse and not otherwise, I do not find any illegality or infirmity with the impugnedorders, which might have called for interference by this Court whileexercising revisional jurisdiction, Finding no merit in the petition, the same stands dismissed. CRR-1619-2015(O&M)-5-Necessary information be sent to the quarter concerned.