High Court Of Punjab & Haryana
B.R. Anand, Income Tax Officer vs. Dashmesh Ice Factory & Ors.
Sections 276C, CrPC 378(4)
Asst. Year 1984-85
Jawahar Lal Gupta & Ashutosh Mohunta, JJ.
CRL Misc. No. 91 of 2001
26th November, 2001
Counsel Appeared
R.P. Sawhney with Kishan Singh, for the Appellant : None, for the Respondent
JUDGMENT
JAWAHAR LAL GUPTA, J.
A complaint under s. 276C of the IT Act, 1961, was filed by Mr. B.R. Anand, ITO, B-Ward, Karnal. It was, inter alia, alleged that for the asst. yr. 1984-85 the firm had filed a return declaring an income of Rs. 23,020. The contents of the return were verified by Raj Kumar, accused No. 4. The AO made certain additions and the taxable income was fixed at Rs. 1,98,200. The accused were summoned. The charge was framed on 19th Sept., 1994, only against Desh Raj, a partner of the firm. It was noticed by the Court that two accused had expired during the pendency of the complaint. After recording evidence, the trial Court found that Raj Kumar, accused No. 4 had verified the contents of the return. Desh Raj was not responsible “for the conduct of the business of the firm”. Thus, he was acquitted.
2. Aggrieved by the order the present petition for the grant of leave to appeal has been filed under s. 378(4) of the Cr.PC. Even though the case title has been given as “B.R. Anand, ITO, B-Ward, Karnal vs. M/s Dashmesh Ice Factory & Ors.”, the power of attorney in favour of the counsel has been signed by Mr. Ram Sharan , ITO, WardI, Karnal, and not by the complainant. Irrespective of that we have heard Mr. R.P. Sawhney, learned counsel for the applicant.
3. The solitary contention raised by the learned counsel is that, even if Desh Raj was acquitted of the charge on the ground that he was not managing the affairs of the firm, the firm itself should have been punished. We have perused the record of the case (which had been summoned). It appears that the evidence produced by the complainant only indicated that the partner was responsible for filing inaccurate return. Two of the partners have expired during the pendency of the proceedings. Thus, the charge was levelled against the surviving partner. It has been found that he was not managing the affairs of the firm. Thus, he has been acquitted. The primary charge against Desh Raj was that he had wilfully omitted or causefully omitted the entry in the books of account and the return was false to his knowledge. Even if a strict view is taken, no charge was proved against him. Still further, it is the admitted position that the complaint was filed on 31st March, 1986, the trial had continued for a long period of more than 13 years till 13th Dec., 1999. Taking the totality of the circumstances of the case, we find no ground to grant of leave to appeal. Dismissed.
[Citation : 256 ITR 110]
