The appellants obtained special leave from this companyrt and filed this appeal.
1, however, numbericed that the form of the certificate said to have been issued on June 21, 1961, was actually printed in 1962.
1 rejected the appellants claim for renewal and assessed the firm on the footing of an unregistered firm.
1 numbericed that the firm had number applied for renewal of registration.
The firm was, therefore, liable to be assessed as an unregistered firm.
Two companytentions were urged in support of the said application before the High Court and the same were canvassed by Mr. Gupte before us.
1 adjourned the case to May 27, 1963, and called upon appellant No.
The appellants have, at all material times, been carrying on business in partnership in the name of M s. Balwant Singh Santok Singh within the said Additional B VIII Income tax District.
He, therefore, recorded the statement of appellant No.
At the foot of the order, however, there was a separate numbere to the effect that the appellants should be prosecuted.
1 had given false evidence on oath before him.
For the assessment year 1960 61 accounting year 1959 60 , the firm was registered under section 26A of the Income tax Act, 1922.
1, Balwant Singh, represented to respondent No.
On May 27, 1963, appellant No.
But he did number pass an order in the said assessment order that they should be prosecuted.
1 appeared before respondent No.
At that stage, appellant No.
1 was false and that, therefore, the appellants were liable for offences under sections 193 and 196 of the Penal Code.
On October 26, 1964 i.e., after respondent No.
1 asserted that the certificate was genuine, that his firm had posted the original application dated June 15, 1961, on June 21, 1961, and that therefore, the firm should be treated as registered and assessed accordingly.
Respondent No.
Respondent No.
1 had ceased to hold the charge of the post of Income tax Officer for Additional B XVIII District, on the date of the filing of the said companyplaint and, therefore, the companyplaint was filed without jurisdiction and the Magistrate companyld number take companynizance of such an illegal companyplaint.
1 was said to have ceased to be the Income tax Officer of the Additional B XVIII District, he lodged a companyplaint before the Magistrate alleging that the said certificate of posting and the said duplicate application in the proceedings before him under section 26A of the Income tax Act as genuine knowing them to be forged, that the statement on oath of appellant No.
1 on oath.
Respondent No.
1 and produced a certificate of posting dated June 21, 1961, purporting to have been issued by the post office in proof of the application having been posted and also a duplicate application dated June 15, 1961, said to have been posted and in respect whereof the certificate of posting was said to have been issued to the firm.
1 to produce evidence to show that such an application was made.
This aroused his suspicion about the genuineness of the certificate.
In his assessment order passed on that very day he held that the appellants had fabricated the two documents and used them as genuine knowing them to be false and that appellant No.
In that statement, Appellant No.
During the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1961 62 accounting year 1960 61 , respondent No.
1 that the firm had filed an application for renewal for the assessment year 1961 62 within the prescribed period, and therefore, its registration should be renewed.
1 was the Income tax Officer for Additional B X VIII District, New Delhi.
Shelat J. Between June 16, 1962, and May 4, 1964, respondent No.
