TMI Blog1994 (5) TMI 23X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income-tax return on July 25, 1986. It is further alleged that Messrs. General Finance Company is accused No. 1, whereas Shri Bhagwant Singh, its managing partner, is accused No. 2 and, as a managing partner during the assessment year 1986-87, he was responsible for the conduct of the business of the firm during that period. It is further alleged that accused No. 1 provides finance to the transporters for which it accepts deposits from various persons and derives income from difference in interest paid to the depositors and the interest charged from the transporters and loans are provided after the loanees endorse the registration of vehicles financed by the accused-firm in its favour. It is further stated in the complaint that the accused- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t explanation from the accused-firm by issuing a show-cause notice dated May 18, 1987, as to why prosecution may not be launched against the accused for contravention of the provisions of section 269SS of the Act. It is further alleged in the complaint that the accused were not able to show any reasonable cause or excuse for their failure to comply with the mandatory provisions of law and, therefore, they were liable to be prosecuted under section 276DD read with section 278B of the Act. The present petition has been filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the complaint, annexure P-1, and other proceedings arising therefrom pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur. It is alleged that, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... year 1986-87 relevant to the period from April 1, 1985 to March 31, 1986. It is further submitted in the reply that during the assessment year in question, the relevant provision of the Act under which the accused have been prosecuted was in force and the accused are being prosecuted in accordance with the provisions prevailing at the time of commission of the offence. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the contravention of the provisions of section 269SS of the Act was punishable under section 276DD of the Act but section 276DD of the Act was omitted with effect from April 1, 1989, and that, at the time when the complaint was filed, the violation of the provisions was no longer penal and the complaint filed by the Assis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
