Cit Vs. Simplex Rayon and Silk Processors

.....5 & 6: [m.s. shah, d.h. waghela & akil kureshi, jj] complaint alleging inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining record in prescribed manner as required under section 4(3) - held, it need not contain allegation of contravention of provisions of section 5 or section 6. burden to prove that there was contravention of provisions of section 5 or 6 does not lie upon prosecution. sections 5 & 6 & pre-conception & pre-natal diagnostic techniques (prohibition of sex selection) rules, 1996, rule 9: [m.s. shah, d.h. waghela & akil kureshi, jj] deficiency or inaccuracy in filling form f - held, deficiency or inaccuracy in filling form f prescribed under rule 9 of the rules made under pndt act, being a deficiency or inaccuracy in keeping record in the prescribed manner, it is not a procedural lapse but an independent offence amounting to contravention of the provisions of section 5 or 6 of the pndt act and has to be treated and tried accordingly. it does not, however, mean that each inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining the requisite record may be as serious as violation of the provisions of section 5 or 6 of the act and the court would be justified, while imposing punishment upon conviction, in taking a lenient view in cases of only technical, formal or insignificant lapses in filing up the forms. for example, not maintaining the record of conducting ultrasonography on a pregnant woman at all or filling up incorrect particulars may be taken in all seriousness as if the provisions of section 5 or 6 were violated, but incomplete details of the full name and address of the pregnant woman may be treated leniently if her identity and address were otherwise mentioned in a manner sufficient to identify and trace her. section 28: [m.s. shah, d.h. waghela & akil kureshi, jj] cognizance of offence held, use of the words appropriate authority twice, at the beginning and end of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 28, clearly conveys that complaint could be made by..........partition. the commissioner had confirmed that disallowance following his decision in the assessee's case for the assessment year 1980-81. in that decision, the commissioner had followed two decisions of the hyderabad benches of the tribunal. he had observed that the substance of those two decisions was that section 171(4) of the act had operation only for computing the income of the hindu undivided family and interest paid to the hindu undivided family could not be disallowed by applying section 40(b). the tribunal has taken the view that the assessee was entitled to the deduction of the interest paid and the disallowance was cancelled. being aggrieved by the said order of the tribunal, the revenue has come in reference to this court.3. we have heard mr. tanvish bhatt, the learned standing counsel appearing for the department. no one appears on behalf of the respondent-assessee though the notice was duly served.4. at the hearing of the reference, our attention was drawn to the decision of this court in the case of bhupendra navnitlal & co. v. cit : [1994]209itr972(guj) wherein it is held as under :'in computing the business profits of the assessee-firm, the interest paid to an individual on monies advanced by him from his individual funds could not be disallowed on the ground that he was partner of the assessee-firm as a karta of a hindu undivided family. when the assessee represents a hindu undivided family, the interest paid to the hindu undivided family has to be disallowed and not any interest paid to the assessee in his account for the advance made by him personally. under section 40(b) of the income tax act, 1961, it is only the interest paid to the partner which is not allowed to be deducted.' 5. following the aforesaid judgment, our answer to the question is in the negative i.e. in favour of the revenue and against the assessee.the reference is, accordingly, disposed of with no order as to costs.