JUDGMENT
Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.
1. A complaint under Section 276c(2) read with Section 278b of the Income-tax act, 1961, was filed against the firm and its six partners. It was, inter alia, alleged that the accused had not paid the amount of tax as assessed. Thus, they had wilfully evaded the payment of tax. Consequently, they were liable to be punished.
2. The trial court after examination of the evidence has found that in respect of the assessment year 1989-90, the assessing officer had found that the assessee was liable to pay an amount of Rs. 47,376. On appeal, the liability was reduced vide order dated November 29, 1991, to Rs. 38,756. It has been further noticed that shri sham singh, Income-tax Officer, had appeared as pw 1. He had admitted that an amount of Rs. 10,000 had been deposited by the assessee on March 27, 1991. Rs. 14,000 were deposited on March 30, 1991. On December 17, 1991, the Revenue had adjusted an amount of Rs. 6,154 which was due by way of refund to the assessee for the assessment year 1991-92. An amount of Rs. 1,000 was deposited on March 6, 1992. A sum of Rs. 1,488 was deposited on March 7, 1992, and Rs. 2,000 were deposited on March 24, 1992. Besides all this, it is also admitted that an amount of Rs. 4,114.30, which was lying in the account of the assessee in the Punjab National Bank, Kotkapura, was attached on December 26, 1991. Thus, full payment was made by March 24, 1992.
3. Mr. Sawhney contends that there was a wilful evasion of tax by the accused.
Is it so ?
4. Learned counsel is unable to refer to any evidence on record to show that the assessee had the resources, but it had failed to pay. Still further, the manner in which the payments have been made is indicative of the assessee’s financial position. Even, in the bank account the total amount was Rs. 4,114.30. Nothing has been produced on record to show that the delay was wilful.
5. Mr. Sawhney submits that opportunities were given to the assessee to make the payment, but the firm as well as the individuals had failed to make the payment.
6. It may be so. However, in the absence of positive evidence to show that they had the resources, it cannot be said that the delay was wilful.
7. The trial court has taken a possible view. It cannot be said to be perverse.
8. Thus, no ground for grant of leave to appeal, as claimed by the Revenue, is made out.
9. The application is, accordingly, dismissed in limine.