Case: G.L. Didwania and Another Vs. Income Tax Officer and Another

The matter arises under theAct. The appellant was an assessee and for the assessment yearhe filed his return of income showing his income as Rs. 26, 224 in the prescribed form and the verification was signed by him on August 25, 1961, and the return was filed on September 8, 1961. The appellant showed his business income from firms in Delhi and Bombay. The assessment was made on October 31, 1961, by the officer concerned taking the income to be of Rs. 35, 699. There is another firm, Young India and Transport Company in which the minor children of the appellant and his two employees were partners. During the course of the assessment proceeding, the assessing authority reached the conclusion that it was not a genuine firm and the instrument of partnership was invalid and inoperative. Thereafter, proceedings under sections 147 and 148 of the Act were initiated against the appellant and his assessment was reopened. In pursuance of the notice under section 148 of the Act, the appellant filed hAfter the Appellate Tribunal passed the order, allowing the appeal in favour of the appellant, he filed a petition before the magistrate to drop the criminal proceedings. The magistrate by his order dated September 2, 1979, dismissed the said application and held that the prosecution has got a right to lead evidence in support of his complaint and the court can come to the conclusion whether or not any criminal offence is made out. The learned magistrate also observed that the order of the Tribunal can be taken only as evidence. Aggrieved by the same, thefiled an application under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, before the High Court and the High Court dismissed it in limine. Hence, the present appeal

Court's reasoning:
We do not agree. The whole question is whether themade a false statement regarding the income which according to the assessing authority has escaped assessment. So far as this issue is concerned, the finding of the Appellate Tribunal is conclusive. Therefore, as held in Uttam Chands case, the prosecution cannot be sustained.