TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (2) TMI 90
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cquitting all the accused. The relevant facts are that respondent No. 1-Delhi Fruit Company, is a partnership firm carrying on its business at Sabzi Mandi, Jalandhar. For the assessment year 1980-81, it consisted of six partners, namely, Ram Sarup, Vas Dev, Darshan Lal, Balbir Singh, Vinod Kumar and Varinder Kumar. It filed its return of income for that year before the Income-tax Officer, District-II2), Jalandhar, on November 5, 1980, declaring an income of Rs. 46,214. The verification in the return was signed by a partner, Ram Sarup. During the assessment proceedings, the Income-tax Officer noticed certain interpolations in the cash book which resulted in the introduction of cash amount of Rs.41,927.02 on account of fictitious credits un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee-firm preferred an appeal against the order of penalty before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-II, Jalandhar, which was dismissed on May 2, 1988. It is at this stage that the Income-tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Jalandhar, filed another complaint against the firm and all the six partners accusing them of offences punishable under sections 276C and 277 read with section 278B of the Act. The said complaint has been dismissed vide impugned order dated March 24, 2000, by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The Chief Judicial Magistrate noted that two of the accused-partners, namely, Darshan Lal and Vinod Kumar, had died during the pendency of the proceedings before him and, therefore, the proceedings against them could not continue. Regar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arlier discharged on January 7, 1985, as on that date, the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner setting aside the order of assessment in which addition of Rs.41,927 had been made was in operation and, therefore, the order of discharge on that basis was justified. However, since the addition had been restored by the Tribunal vide its order dated July 19, 1985, and penalty for concealment had been levied thereafter, a fresh complaint for the same offences was maintainable. He relied on a judgment of this court in D. N. Bhasin v. Union of India [1988] 171 ITR 7. He also relied on the decision of the Delhi High Court in W. L. Kohli v. CIT [1985] 152 ITR 154. The aforesaid two decisions were followed by the Kerala High Court in Madras S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ese additions, criminal complaints were also filed under sections 276C and 277 of the Act against the assessee. The additions were deleted in appeal by the first appellate authority. The Revenue had filed appeals before the Tribunal which were pending. It was at this stage that the accused-assessee had filed petitions for quashing of the criminal complaints as the additions which were the basis of the complaints, did not survive after the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Revenue had resisted these petitions on the ground that the appeals filed by it were pending before the Tribunal. It was, therefore, held that since the additions had been deleted by the Commissioner (Appeals), the proceedings had to be quashed. Howeve....