Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Appeal No.609 of 2008 ====================================================== Hindustan Live Stock Agency, 1/158, Gali Bagichiwali, Punja Sharif, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi – 110 006 through its partner Rajeev Malik .... .... Appellant/s Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Central Revenue Building, Patna-800 001. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Miscellaneous Appeal No.608 of 2008 Hindustan Live Stock Agency, 1/158, Gali Bagichiwali, Punja Sharif, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi – 110 006 through its partner Rajeev Malik .... .... Appellant/s Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Central Revenue Building, Patna-800 001. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Miscellaneous Appeal No.610 of 2008 ====================================================== Hindustan Live Stock Agency, 1/158, Gali Bagichiwali, Punja Sharif, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi – 110 006 through its partner Rajeev Malik .... .... Appellant/s Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Central Revenue Building, Patna-800 001. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Miscellaneous Appeal No.604 of 2008 ====================================================== Hindustan Live Stock Agency, 1/158, Gali Bagichiwali, Punja Sharif, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi – 110 006 through its partner Rajeev Malik .... .... Appellant/s Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Central Revenue Building, Patna-800 001. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : (In MA No.609 of 2008) For the Appellant/s : Dr.Krishnandan Singh, Sr.Adv. Dr.Kamal Deo Sharma Mr. Sriram Krishna Mr.Shivjee Singh Patna High Court MA No.609 of 2008 (6) dt.30-03-2012 2 For the Respondent/s : Mrs.Archana Sinha Mr.Harshwardhan Pd. (In MA No.608 of 2008) For the Appellant/s : Dr.Krishnandan Singh, Sr.Adv. Dr.Kamal Deo Sharma Mr. Sriram Krishna Mr.Shivjee Singh For the Respondent/s : Mrs.Archana Sinha Mr.Harshwardhan Pd (In MA No.610 of 2008) For the Appellant/s : Dr.Krishnandan Singh, Sr.Adv. Dr.Kamal Deo Sharma Mr. Sriram Krishna Mr.Shivjee Singh For the Respondent/s : Mrs.Archana Sinha Mr.Harshwardhan Pd (In MA No.604 of 2008) For the Appellant/s : Dr.Krishnandan Singh, Sr.Adv. Dr.Kamal Deo Sharma Mr. Sriram Krishna Mr.Shivjee Singh For the Respondent/s : Mrs.Archana Sinha Mr.Harshwardhan Pd ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN C.A.V. ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN 6 30.03.2012 The present appeals have been preferred by the appellant under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and are directed against a common order dated 16.5.2008 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (“Tribunal” for short) under Section 254(2) of the Act . 2. The following questions of law have been proposed for consideration in these appeals: Patna High Court MA No.609 of 2008 (6) dt.30-03-2012 3 (i) Whether a liberal construction of the words "sufficient cause” ought to be made to condone limitation of a party not coming clean and making wrong/incorrect statements to explain the delay in filing of appeal by it ? (ii) Whether the Ld. Tribunal has acted properly in condoning delay despite incorrect statements made by the Revenue giving conjectural explanations to explain away the incorrect statement made? (iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case the Respondent has made out a case of sufficient and bonafide cause to explain the delay in filing appeal by it for the period of limitation to be condoned ? (iv) Whether or not the Ld. Tribunal was obliged in the interest of justice to pronounce one way or another its opinion and judgments on all issues raised by the petitioner Appellant in its petition under Section 254(2) of the Act ? (v) Whether the Tribunal can justify and sustain the action of the Assessing Officer under Section 147 of the Act, in purporting to have reason to believe that income liable to tax had escaped assessment solely on basis of lodging of F.I.R. on the ground that public opinion, howsoever uninformed, had a bearing on his mind and that the Assessing Officer was under obligation to take note of it and act? 3. In M.A. No. 610/2008 the following two additional questions have also been proposed: (i) Whether or not the Ld. Tribunal was justified in reaching findings and coming to the conclusion on basis of facts and materials never brought on record at any stage of proceedings nor ever urged or submitted before it by either party even without giving the Appellants any opportunity whatsoever to rebut the same or on basis of baseless assumptions, conjectures and surmises? Patna High Court MA No.609 of 2008 (6) dt.30-03-2012 4 (ii) Whether or not baseless assumptions and conjectures far from true facts and/or admittedly pertaining to subsequent or previous Assessment Years and that too never brought on record can justifiably form the basis for the Ld. Tribunals order impugned? 4. Inasmuch as all the four appeals arise out of a common order of the Tribunal and are said to involve similar questions of law, the same were heard together as analogous cases and are being disposed of together for the sake of convenience 5. The brief facts leading up to the present appeals may be summarized hereunder. 6. The appellant is a registered partnership firm carrying on business in livestock and has been a regular assessee for the past several years. Returns for the years under reference were filed and summarily accepted under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act. 7. It appears that pursuant to investigation carried out in connection with the irregularities found in the Animal Husbandry Department, notices under Section 148 of t

Applicable IPC Section: 254

Statute Text:
Section 254 of the Indian Penal Code. Delivery to another of coin as genuine which, when first possessed, the deliverer did not know to be altered. Whoever delivers to any other person as genuine or as a coin of a different description from what it is, or attempts to induce any person to receive as genuine, or as a different coin from what it is, any coin in respect of which he knows that any such operation as that mentioned in sections 246, 247, 248 or 249 has been performed, but in respect of which he did not, at the time when he took it into his possession, know that such operation had been performed, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years or with fine to an amount which may extend to ten times the value of the coin for which the altered coin is passed, or attempted to be passed.