RENGASAMY J.

This revision is directed against the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, Madras, in C. A. No. 103 of 1991 against the order of conviction imposed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.I.), Madras, in E.O.C.C. No. 268 of 1989 for the offence under section 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961

Learned senior counsel, Mr. G. Subramanian, appearing for the revision petitioner, would submit that the petitioner never intended to suppress his income in the return exhibit P-2 submitted by him for 1984-85 but as the property No. 15, Baliah Avenue, was occupied by him and only the notional rental income was to be worked out according to the provisions of the Income-tax Act, by mistake, the notional rental income for the house property was omitted to be mentioned in exhibit P-2 return and this has been accepted by the learned Principal Sessions Judge holding that the omission to include the notional rental income is not wilful on the part of the revision petitioner herein and also has acquitted the revision petitioner on that ground of the charge under section 276C(1). When such view has been taken by the learned Principal Se