The Director of Income Tax vs. Vodithala Education Society
ITTA/243/2014HC Telangana20 Aug 2018
Bench: A Closer Look At The Grounds Urged In The Memo Of Appeal, It Shall Be Apt To Have An Overview Of The Backgrounds Facts. Factual Background 3. The Gravamen Of Charge Against The Respondent Is That He Borrowed An Amount Of Rs. 20.00 Lacs From The Appellant & In Lieu, Issued A Cheque Bearing No. 2225230 Dated 03.05.2007, Drawn On The Citizens Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Vinayak Bazar, Jammu. The Appellant Presented The Cheque To His Banker, Jcc Bank, Jammu For Collection, Which On Presentation Came To Be Dishonoured
Section 138Section 242Section 342Section 540
…e part of the complainant to specify the date of advancement of loan is a glaring loophole in the case of the complainant. Relevant observation is as below: “12. Applying the ratio of the aforesaid case as also the case of K.N. Beena v. Muniyappan; (2001) 8 SCC 458:2002 SCC (Cri) 14 when we examine the facts of this case, we have noticed that although the respondent might have failed to discharge the burden that the cheque which the respondent had issued was not signed by him, yet there appears to be a glaring loophole in the case of the complainant who failed to establish that the cheque in fact had bee…
