JOG RAJ Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JOG Raj, the petitioner, has come up in revision against his conviction and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for four months and a fine of Rs. 500, in default, further rigorous imprisonment for sixty days, under Section 227 of the Income-tax Act.

(2.) THE petitioner is an active partner in a firm known by the name and style of Messrs Himalaya Medical Store, Hoshiarpur. The petitioner filed a return under his own signature for the firm for the assessment year 1977-78. This return included the income of the business at Hoshiarpur as well as a branch of the concern at Gagret. The assessable income shown by the petitioner was Rs. 1,42,402. The return came up for scrutiny before the Income-tax Officer, Hoshiarpur. Since he entertained some doubts as to the correctness of the information supplied in the return, he issued a notice to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why an amount of Rs. 60,570 should not be added to the income.

(3.) THE petitioner filed a reply and took up the plea that the aforesaid amount of Rs. 60,570 was not part of his income. Not accepting the explanation of the petitioner, the Income-tax Officer added the amount of Rs. 60,570. The petitioner went up in appeal which was partly allowed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in the sense that the amount was reduced to Rs. 39,534. The petitioner then went up before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal but the appeal was dismissed and the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was upheld. The Income-tax Officer after the decision of the appeal by the Tribunal issued a notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why penalty should not be levied on him. However, after the receipt of the reply from the petitioner, the Income-tax Officer did not pursue the penalty proceedings. But, the Income-tax Officer filed a complaint under Sections 276c and 277 of the Income-tax Act in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Hoshiarpur. The complaint is exhibit PA-1. The learned trial court found that the case against the petitioner under Section 276c of the Income-tax Act was not made out. It, however, recorded the conviction of the petitioner under Section 277 of the Income-tax Act and imposed the aforesaid sentence on the petitioner. The petitioner went up in appeal. The appellate court upheld the conviction and sentence of the petitioner. Hence, this petition.