9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (8) TMI 19X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icial Magistrate discharging the accused was set aside and the case was ordered to be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate for further inquiry into the matter. The facts which are relevant for the decision of the present petition are that the Income-tax Officer filed a complaint for the offence under section 277 of the Income-tax Act read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused-petitioners and others. It was alleged that M/s. Vishkarma Motors, accused No. 1, was a partnership concern of which accused Nos. 2 to 4, namely, Hardayal Singh, Rakha Singh and Smt. Punna Devi, were the partners having shares to the extent of 1/3rd each. It was alleged that the accused submitted income-tax return for the assessment year 1973-7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e same to be true and, as such, had committed the offence punishable under section 277 of the Income-tax Act. It was alleged that accused Nos. 2 to 4 had been arrayed as accused being responsible for the conduct of the business of the firm. After the aforesaid complaint was filed by the Income-tax Officer, the accused were summoned and thereafter the complainant produced pre-charge evidence. Thereafter, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate after hearing both sides vide order dated May 22, 1989, copy annexure P2, found that no case was made out against accused No. 2, Hardayal Singh, and accused No. 4, Smt. Punna Devi, as they were not in charge and were not having control of the business, whereas accused No. 3, Rakha Singh was in charge an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... February 27, 1990, the revision petition was admitted and further proceedings before the trial court were stayed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties in detail and have gone through the record carefully. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted before me that the learned magistrate had rightly ordered discharge of the accused-petitioners and that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had erred in law in setting aside the order of discharge qua the present petitioners. It was submitted that the criminal complaint, copy annexure P1, was filed by the complainant, namely, the Income-tax Officer, on the ground that while filing the income-tax return on July 18,1973, for the assessment year 1973-74, the accused had made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come-tax Act (after its amendment with effect from April 1, 1964), as it stood on July 18, 1973, the date on which the income-tax return was filed by the accused, was as under: "Abetment of false return, etc.-If a person abets or induces in any manner another person to make and deliver an account, statement or declaration relating to any income chargeable to tax which is false and which he either knows to be false or does not believe to be true, he shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years: Provided that in the absence of special and adequate reasons to the contrary to be recorded in the judgment of the court, such imprisonment shall not be for less than six months." With effect from October ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned in this sub-section shall render any such person liable to any punishment if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he had exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence, and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. Explanation. -For t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rate and decline to allow the appeal as against the respondents Nos. 1 to 3..." The law laid down by the Division Bench in the above said authority was followed by a single Bench of this court in Smt. Prem Lata v. ITO [1985] 151 ITR 723. From a perusal of the above, in my opinion, it would be clear that the accused-petitioner, Hardayal Singh, could not be prosecuted for having committed the offence on July 18, 1973, inasmuch as section 278B of the Income-tax Act was introduced only with effect from October 1, 1975, whereas the offence was allegedly committed prior thereto, i.e., on July 18, 1973. The submission of learned counsel for the respondent that the accused had furnished fresh income-tax return for the assessment year 1973-74 even ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
