- (1.) THE Income-tax Officer, Jalandhar, filed a complaint under Section 276CC of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against the respondent. THE Cheif Judicial Magistrate after examination of the evidence has found that "the complainant has utterly failed to prove on file that the notice exhibit P-3 under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act was ever served... upon the accused". Thus, the assessee was acquitted of the charge. Aggrieved by the order, the Revenue has filed this petition for the grant of leave to appeal.
(2.) MR. Sawhney, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the departmental authorities had held the respondent-assessee guilty of delay in filing the return. A penalty had been imposed. The order had attained finality. Thus, the court could not have gone into the question of service of the notice. A perusal of the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar, shows that the complaint had been filed in respect of the assessment year 3976-77. The assessee had initially filed his return on August 28, 1976. He had not mentioned the income from the house property. Proceedings under Section 147 were initiated against him. A notice under Section 148 of the Act was allegedly sent to him on March 22, 1980. The assessee had filed a return on December 15, 1980. Even in this return he had declared a net loss of Rs. 20,930. It is in this situation that it was alleged that there was a delay of seven months in filing the return after the service of the notice under Section 148 of the Act. Was the notice actually served as alleged ?
(3.) MR. Sawhney contends that the findings recorded by the Revenue were binding on the trial court. Is it so ?;