Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1988 (9) TMI 17

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... stances against the six respondents, the first respondent being a partnership firm and the other respondents being the partners thereof. The firm came into existence on April 1, 1973, and has been carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of indigenous medicinal preparations. After the income-tax assessments of the first accused firm for the assessment years 1975-76 and 1976-77 were completed on September 29, 1976, and February 3, 1977, respectively, it came to light that the first accused firm had a current account and a fixed deposit account for Rs. 90,000 with the State Bank of Mysore, Abhiramapuram Branch, Madras. Neither the fixed deposit account of Rs. 90,000 nor the current account balance of Rs. 352.52 was disclosed by the fi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ir plea was accepted by the Magistrate and it is that decision arrived at by the Magistrate which is challenged in the present revision. Three main points are raised before me by counsel for the respondents and they will be considered seriatim Those points are : 1. There is no valid complaint filed before the Magistrate. 2. From the records, it is shown that only the second accused has submitted the return ; and all statements alleged to be false have been made solely by him and, therefore, no charge can lie against the other respondents. 3. When the reassessment order made by the Income-tax Officer on the basis that the return was false has itself been set aside by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the complaint is lacking le .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f the provision is that when any offence mentioned in this section has been committed in a court, a third party is not entitled to bring the matter before any court by way of a complaint. The right and privilege of bringing those offences for trial belong exclusively to the court before which the offences have been committed. It is clearly to be borne in mind that the definition of the term "court" in section 195(3), Criminal Procedure Code, is to be applied to all the provisions of the section and not only to the portion of the section which reads as "except from the complaint in writing from the court". In the bar embodied in the opening portion, i.e., that "no court shall take cognizance", the term "court" has also to be understood as de .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... it could have retrospective effect. If, on the contrary, the provision is to brand as an offence an act which was not an offence before, or to permit prosecution which was not permitted before, or to change the rule of evidence to the detriment of the accused, such a provision, having the effect of aggravating the situation of the accused, could not have retrospective effect. If, as per the existing laws, the Income-tax Officer did not have the power to file a complaint, such power cannot be given after eleven years but, as has been seen earlier, the power of the Income-tax Officer has been always present to file a complaint for offences under sections 193 and 196, Indian Penal Code, but, he could not act as a court in filing the complaint. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ents before the Incometax Officer. The only allegation is that they have signed in the opening form of the current account. The fact that they have signed in the opening form of the current account would not in any manner render them liable for statements contained in the returns of income and for the oral and personal statements made by accused No. 2 before the Income-tax Officer. It has not been shown at any place that each one of them knew the contents of the returns of income filed by accused No. 2. It has not been the case of the Income-tax Officer that all the partners of the firm have been responsible therefor. Therefore, the plea for the discharge of accused Nos. 3 to 6 is perfectly justified and the order of the Magistrate concerni .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates