TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court partially quashes complaint under Income-tax Act, 1961 against partners.</h1> The court partially accepted the petition to quash a complaint under section 276E of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against certain partners not directly ... Offences And Prosecution Issues:Partnership-firm seeking to quash a complaint under section 276E of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for alleged violations of section 269T; Application of retrospective effect of the amendment omitting section 276E; Liability of partners not directly involved in filing the return; Interpretation of liability of partners in a partnership-firm.Analysis:The petitioners, a partnership-firm, sought to quash a complaint under section 276E of the Income-tax Act, 1961, alleging violations of section 269T. The complaint stated that the firm filed its income-tax return for 1986-87, declaring income with an entry related to a deposit by a deceased individual. The complaint alleged violations of section 269-I and raised concerns about the nature of the deposit. The petitioners argued that section 276E had been omitted from April 1, 1989, and the complaint post this date should be quashed. The petitioners contended that the legislative intent post the omission was not to initiate criminal proceedings after April 1, 1985. The court noted the arguments but emphasized the need to examine if the allegations constituted a violation of section 269T during the assessment year in question.The petitioners further argued that certain partners, specifically two women and a son, were not directly involved in the filing of the return. They contended that these partners should not be held liable for prosecution under section 276E. The court considered precedents where partners not specifically alleged against were not held liable. In light of this, the court partially accepted the petition, quashing the complaint against the specified partners. However, the petition was dismissed concerning other partners directly involved in the filing and verification of the return.In a related matter, another partner not involved in verifying the return sought to quash the complaint against her. The court granted this request, quashing the complaint against this partner. The court directed the trial court to proceed against the co-accused, provided there was sufficient evidence, in accordance with the law. This comprehensive analysis addressed the issues of quashing the complaint, retrospective application of the amendment, liability of partners not directly involved in filing, and the interpretation of partners' liability in a partnership-firm.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
