AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (8) TMI 19
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs 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 1973-74 on July 18,1973, and that the assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act on September 10, 1973. It was alleged that subsequently, the Income-tax Officer impounded certain books of account relating to the assessment year 1973-74 and notice under section 131 of the Income-tax Act was served on accused No. 1. It was alleged that on the basis of the information collected, the Income-tax Officer served notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act upon accused Nos. 2 and 3 for reopening the assessment for the assessment year 1973-74. It was alleged that after perusing the account books and other material, the Income-tax Officer made reassessment on March 12, 1980. It was alleged that against the said reassessment, the accused filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax and thereupon the assessment order dated March 12, 19....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he firm and the revision petition was not directed against her discharge on that account. Resultantly, while accepting the revision petition, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, directed the trial court for further inquiry into the matter. Aggrieved against this order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hardayal Singh (partner) and M/s. Vishkarma Motors filed the present revision petition in this court under section 401/482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Vide order dated 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 ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lse return, etc.-If a person abets or induces in any manner another person to make and deliver an account or a 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 or to commit an offence under sub-section (1) of section 276C, he shall be punishable, - (i) in a case where the amount of tax, penalty or interest which would have been evaded, if the declaration, account or statement had been accepted as true, or which is wilfully attempted to be evaded, exceeds one hundred thousand rupees, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to seven years and with fine; (ii) in any other case, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three months but which may extend to three years and with fine." With effect from October 1, 1975, section 278B, was also added in the Income-tax Act, which reads as under: "Offences by companies. -(1) Where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company, every person who, at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....offence. We, therefore, affirm the view taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate 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 subsequently and on that basis the accused could be prosecuted under the amended Act, in my opinion, is misconceived. Copy of the criminal complaint filed by the Income-tax Officer is available on the record as annexure P1. There is not even a word in the entire criminal complaint that any other income-tax return was filed by the accused after July 18,1973, for....