U.K.Verma, J. - (1.) These are three Criminal Appeals Nos. 439 of 1979, 440 of 1979 and 441 of 1979 arising out of the order of Sri R.B. Lal, Sessions Judge, Kanpur, dated June 3, 1978, wherehy he had dismissed the complaints of the Income-tax Officer against Moti Lal and Ham Niwas, under Section 27GC of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
(2.) The relevant facts briefly stated are that the income-tax authorities raided the firm of Moti Lal and Ham Niwas on May 18, 1971. The search and seizure continued on May 19, 1971, also. The account books of the firm were taken away and the respondents were required by notices under Section 139(2) of the Income-tax Act to submit their returns within 30 days of the service of the notices. The notices were served on May 25, 1971. The respondent on June 21, 1971, sent an application for one month's time to file the return commencing from the date of return of the account books by the Income-tax Department. The Income-tax Officer extended the time to file the return up to October 30, 1971, and asked the respondents to inspect the account books for collecting information in connection with the submission of their returns. Ram Niwas, respondent, made inspection on October 5, 1971, for about three hours and on November 15, 1971, moved an application again for one month time to file the return. This application was rejected by the Income-tax Officer and on December 11, 1971, a complaint was filed for non-submission of the income-tax returns. The respondents, on the basis of income estimated on November 4, 1971, filed the return on January 4, 1972.
(3.) The short point to be examined is as to whether there had been wilful default on the part of the respondents to file returns. The Sessions Judge in his impugned judgment has observed that the respondents should have been allowed more time till November 15, 1971, to file their returns. Counsel for the respondents urged before me that it was not possible to get the voluminous account books inspected in the short time allowed to the respondents and as such the order of the Sessions Judge was fully justified. The Sessions Judge further has presumed that there could not have been wilful default in view of the conduct of the respondents in filing the income-tax returns on January 4, 1972. I am unable to conclude that the findings of the Sessions Judge about the absence of mens rea in the instant cases could be said to be unreasonable and unfounded on the basis of the evidence on record. There being no deliberate defiance or conscious disregard of the order of the Income-tax Officer in not filing the return within six months of the service of notice as rightly held by the Sessions Judge, all these three appeals deserve to be dismissed and, I, therefore, order accordingly.;