Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3.1.1 CW-1 in his cross examination stated that the amount qua the claimed huge transactions was not mentioned in the complaint. (Vol. The assessment order has already been enclosed as part of the complaint, wherein the income was assessed @ Rs.1,59,24,742/-.). CW-1 admitted that they have not filed anything on record to show how the claimed income of Rs.1,59,24,742/- except the assessment order (Vol. There is detailed discussion in the assessment order and the documents which are relied upon in assessment order, are available in the official record.). CW-1 in his cross stated that he had to check from the ITD database to find out the return income of the tax payer for earlier year i.e. F.Y. 2015-2016, if the return was filed by the tax payer and further that he has to check from the records that if the accused filed his return of income for FY 2015-2016 & FY 2017-2018. (Vol. The same is not relevant for the assessment year in question.) CW-1 denied the suggestion that It is incorrect to suggest that he was intentionally avoiding giving answer to the previous question apprehending that the same will go against the prosecution story. CW-1 admitted the suggestion that there 5 of 20 was no reference of any company being run by the accused or that there no reference of VAT number of any company alloted to the accused. It is further admitted by witness that that complaint Ex CW1/11 was filed before the court prior to passing of assessment order & computation i.e. Ex CW1/12 and demand notice Ex CW1/13. (Vol. Assessment was completed on 31.12.2019 and at the time of filing of the present complaint, passing of assessment order was not required since the offence of not filing the return in response to the notice u/s 142(1) of IT Act had already been committed. Also there was information in possession of the department which shows that the total income of the assessee exceeded the maximum amount of income not chargeable to tax and the same constituted reasonable belief that the accused had attempted to evade taxes as envisaged under section 276C(1) of the IT Act.). CW-1 denied the suggestion that he was intentionally giving false volunteer statement just to make improvement and fill up the lacuna in the case or that the complaint has been filed pre-maturely without compliance of mandatory provisions of law. Sh. Naveen Kumar further denied the suggestion that the present complaint has been filed without there being mandatory documents / compliances. CW-1 admitted that no postal receipt of service of notice has been placed on record. (Vol. Notices has been served electronically through ITBA which is a software and valid mode of service as per Income Tax rules) or that in the complaint or in his examination in chief 6 of 20 he had no where stated that the accused was served the notice electronically through ITBA further that he was intentionally giving false explanations to fill up the lacuna in this regard. CW-1 further denied the suggestion that no notice dated 10.03.2018 and 26.03.2018 were sent or served upon the accused or that as no notice dated 10.03.2018 & 26.03.2018 were served on accused, no delivery proof or receipt has been filed on record. (Vol. The document ExCW1/5 is the proof of delivery.) It is wrong to suggest that ExCW1/5 is not a proof of delivery. CW-1 was put the following questions: