1994 (2) TMI 30

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....1. The complaint was filed on the allegations that the petitioners submitted their income-tax return on March 15, 1990, at Rs. 52,050 and the assessment was completed at a net taxable income of Rs. 54,050, vide order dated October 30, 1990. During the course of assessment proceedings, the then Income-tax Officer found that the assessees had accepted Rs. 17,000 on June 24, 1988, Rs. 40,000 on September 6, 1988, Rs. 12,000 on October 1, 1988, in cash from Shri Milkhi Ram, son of Kalu Ram, and they accepted Rs. 10,000 in cash from Shri Milkhi Ram, son of Bihari Lal, on May 13, 1988, otherwise than by account payee cheque or account payee draft in contravention of the provisions of section 269SS of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Petitioners Nos. 2 t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the firm. It was further maintained that although sections 276DD and 276E were omitted by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, yet the violation of the provisions prior to the date of omission remained penal and the petitioners were prima facie liable for the offence for which they were summoned. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. A perusal of the complaint as filed by the respondent in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur, shows that the complaint was filed under section 276DD read with section 278B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (assessment year 1989-90) and the petitioners were alleged to have contravened the provisions of section 269SS of the Income-tax Act by accepting v....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tion of the provisions of the abovereferred section. It was argued on behalf of the petitioners that the contravention of the provisions of section 269SS was punishable under section 276DD, but that section was omitted with effect from April 1, 1989, and at the time when the assessment return was submitted by the petitioners, the violation of the provisions was no longer penal and the complaint was filed by the Income-tax Officer by misusing his powers. This contention of learned counsel, however, does not hold good. It is correct that section 276DD was omitted with effect from April 1, 1989, but the contravention was alleged to have been made by the petitioners in the year 1988. Unless a different intention appears, the repeal does not ....