TMI Blog1992 (1) TMI 75X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , exhibit R-2, dated January 7, 1986, was made, rejecting the return filed and adding a suppressed income of Rs. 1,47,888. The petitioners appealed against that order unsuccessfully. The appeal was rejected on September 5, 1986, by exhibit R-2(a). Thereafter, a second appeal was filed before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. While so, the petitioners filed another return dated March 21, 1987, purportedly in terms of exhibit P-1 circular dated February 13, 1986, and withdrew the appeal filed by them before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The petitioners submit that the scheme covers past years also and that they had acted on a promise contained in the circulars. The Revenue cannot go back on the promise or initiate penal proceedings ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of Criminal Procedure or in any other law for withdrawing a private complaint. May be, there are cases where the court can drop it., as indicated in K M. Mathew v. State of Kerala [1992] 1 KLT 1 (SC). An accused person has no right in him to seek withdrawal of a criminal complaint. For the same reason, direction cannot be issued to restrain the respondents from proceeding with the criminal complaint. The criminal court is in seisin of the case, and it is upto it to deal with the case in accordance with law. In a situation where facts are in dispute, this court will not invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under article 226 to adjudicate on disputed questions of fact. As observed by the Supreme Court in Delhi Development Authority v. Lila ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed income. What is in existence and is known is not disclosed or revealed by rewriting it or repeating it, in any sense of the term. The attempt of the petitioners is no more than an adventure, to sail into the harbour of amnesty, away from the troubled waters in which they found themselves. They disclosed nothing and nothing new or different was revealed. Answer to question No. 19 in exhibit R-2(b) states that if the Income-tax Officer had already found material to show that there has been concealment, the question of applying the amnesty scheme does not arise. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the scheme does not apply and the contentions in this behalf have only to be rejected. Original petition is, accordingly, dismis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
