Case Law Details
Sayarmull Surana Vs ITO (Madras High Court)
Conclusion: No necessity for Department to have launched prosecution hurriedly when the case was pending before lower authorities as the law of limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C. for criminal prosecution had been excluded by the Economic Offences (Inapplicability of Limitation) Act, 1974.
Held:
Assessee-accused filed his returns showing income at Rs.48,150/-. Income Tax Officer conducted investigation and determined the income at Rs.29,05,126/-. Challenging the said determination, assessee took the matter on appeal to CIT (Appeals) and then Tribunal, which, determined the tax at Rs.2,82,650/-. It might be necessary to state here that the authorities created under the Income Tax Act were fact-finding bodies and the accused had been knocking the doors of these bodies challenging the determination of the income. The fact-finding body itself had come to the conclusion that income of the accused for the relevant period was only Rs.2,82,650/- and the tax payable by him thereon was only Rs.1,10,402/-. Thus, there was no necessity for Department to have launched the prosecution hurriedly since the law of limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C. for criminal prosecution had been excluded by the Economic Offences (Inapplicability of Limitation) Act, 1974. Thus, it could not be stated that the accused was wilfully evading the payment of tax.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER / JUDGEMENT
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
