The assessee-company was a textile manufacturer. It was represented by its managing director, the first petitioner and the executive director, the second petitioner. \u00a0The ACIT filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate under S.\u00a0200\u00a0and\u00a0190(1)\u00a0of the Criminal Procedure Code against the petitioners for offences under S. 276C(2)\u00a0read with S. \u00a0278B(3)\u00a0of the\u00a0 Act,\u00a0for the assessment year 2012-13 for wilful default in payment of penalty levied under S. \u00a0271(1)(c)\u00a0for concealment of income on account of capital gains that arose by way of sale of certain immovable properties. The petitioners contended that the trial court had failed to take into consideration the necessity and requirement for marking the documents adduced by way of additional evidence. On a criminal revision petition\u00a0 allowing the petition the Court held that \u00a0according to section\u00a0391\u00a0of the Code, if the appellate court opined that additional evidence was necessary, shall record its reasons and take such evidence itself. The petitioners had been charged under sections\u00a0276C(2)\u00a0read with section\u00a0278B(3)\u00a0of the Act for having wilfully failed to pay the penalty and having deliberately failed to admit the capital gains that arose from the sale transactions done by the assessee. The criminal revision petition under section\u00a0391\u00a0of the Code had been filed by the petitioners even at the time of presentation of the appeal. The documents sought to be marked as additional evidence were not new documents and they were documents relating to filing of returns with the Department in respect of the earlier assessment years, copies of which were also available with the Department. By marking these documents, the nature or course of the case would not be altered. The documents had not been produced before the trial court due to inefficiency or inadvertence of the person who had conducted the case. Where documents were left out to be marked due to carelessness and ignorance, they could be allowed to be marked for elucidation of truth, in the interest of justice, by exercising powers under section\u00a0391\u00a0of the Code. The petitioners should be allowed to let in additional evidence subject to the provisions of Chapter XXIII of the Code in the presence of the complainant and his counsel.( AY.2012-13)<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" S. 276C : Offences and prosecutions – Wilful attempt to evade tax \u2013Concealment of income- Appeal- Failure to produce documents to prove there was no willful default -Additional evidence \u2013 Appellate Court has the power to admit additional evidence in the interest of justice . [ S.271(1) (c ) , 278B(3 ) , Criminal Procedure Code , 1973 , S. 190, 200 , 391 ]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-12254","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-digest"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-3bE","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12254","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=12254"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12254\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":12255,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12254\/revisions\/12255"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=12254"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=12254"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=12254"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}