1996 (5) TMI 43 - HC - Income Tax

Partners face criminal charges under Income-tax Act & Indian Penal Code, court rejects defenses, case to conclude soon.

Partners of a firm faced criminal charges under the Income-tax Act and Indian Penal Code. The Chief Judicial Magistrate discharged husbands of partners ... False Return, High Court, Income Tax, Offences And Prosecution Issues:1. Discharge of partners of a firm in a criminal case based on age and lack of signature on income return.2. Allegations against partners and husbands of partners for offenses under the Income-tax Act and Indian Penal Code.3. Dismissal of petitions under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the sessions court.Analysis:The judgment involves two matters arising from the same proceedings before a magistrate, where the Income-tax Officer filed a complaint against a firm and its partners for offenses under the Income-tax Act and Indian Penal Code. The Chief Judicial Magistrate discharged the husbands of the partners but framed charges against the firm and its partners. The sessions court dismissed the revisions filed by the parties, leading to the filing of petitions under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the Income-tax Department and one of the partners.The partner, who was over 70 years old, argued that no prosecution should be entertained against her due to her age, citing circulars from the Income-tax Department. However, the court emphasized that an affidavit is not considered evidence unless specifically allowed by the Criminal Procedure Code. The court highlighted that the proof of age is not evidence of a formal nature and advised the partner to present sufficient material to the trial court to claim exemptions from prosecution based on age.The argument that the partner was not liable because the income return was not signed by her was also discussed. The court clarified that the assessment of the partner's responsibility should be done by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, based on the material before him to determine if there is enough evidence for conviction.In the second matter, filed by the Income-tax Department, the contention was that the husbands of the partners were complicit in the offense as they attended proceedings before the Income-tax Department. However, both the trial court and sessions court found no convincing evidence of their involvement in the offense. The court agreed with this reasoning and dismissed the petitions under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code as they amounted to a second revision.The judgment concluded by dismissing both petitions and directing the Chief Judicial Magistrate to conclude the case within three months. The parties were given the opportunity to present evidence before the trial court for any relief from prosecution.