1986 (1) TMI 81

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s been filed through S. N. Prasad, Income-tax Officer, Special Circle, Ranchi. It has been stated that petitioner No. 2, Chhotelal Khemka, carried on business in the name and style of the firm, M/s. Gajanand Chotelal, which happened to be the Hindu undivided family business. The firm was an assessee under the Act and the entire transaction of the same business including the filing of return was being done by petitioner No. 2 as karta of the Hindu undivided family. During the assessment proceeding for the assessment year 1971-72, the return had been filed on November 19, 1973, i.e., much after the due date and, consequently, the Department issued various notices under sections 142(1) and 143(2) of the Act. No response has been made to those ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....allied Act, i.e., the Economic Offences (Inapplicability of Limitation) Act, 1974 (Act No. 12 of 1974). The submission is that the Income-tax Act has been excluded from the purview of section 468 of the Code. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that, as a matter of fact, this allied Act has come into force on April 1, 1974, and, therefore, it was not applicable to the facts of this case and thus the impugned cognizance was barred by limitation as contemplated under section 468 of the Code. It appears from a perusal of the complaint petition that the complainant has alleged that there has been delay in the filing of the complaint and thus had made a prayer to condone the delay as contemplated under section 473 of the Code....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er any witness nor any evidence has been produced on behalf of the complainant. There appears from the different order sheets that the complainant had completely failed to produce any evidence in spite of the definite order for the production of the witness. Further, from the order sheet dated February 24, 1978, it appears that although a last chance had been given, still the complainant had not produced any witness whatsoever. However, thereafter, some witnesses have been examined and the complainant has been examined ex parte at the back of the petitioners. Ultimately, further proceeding has been stayed by this criminal miscellaneous application which has been admitted on May 29, 1979. Therefore, from the facts stated above, it appears....