TIWARI KANHAIYALAL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are 12 appeals filed by the appellant on grant of special leave by this Court from the common judgment of the Rajasthan High Court allowing 12 criminal appeals filed by the respondent in accordance with Section 417 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The appellant as partner of his partnership firm filed 12 In-come-tax Returns for various assessment years - the last one being the assessment year 1959-l960. The Returns were filed by the appellant between 26-3-1958 and 16-10-l961 in accordance with Section 22 (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1922 - hereinafter referred to as the 1922 Act. The said Act was repealed and replaced by the Income Tax Act, 1961 - hereinafter called the 1961 Act. The 1961 Act came into force on or from 1-4-1962. During the course of the assessment proceedings when account books were produced for examination by the Income-tax Officer, Special Investigation Circle 'B'. Jaipur, he suspected their genuineness or correctness. In May, 1963 the appellant's premises were searched and a number of other books of account and documents were seized. Thereupon the appellant filed revised Returns on 1-3-1964 in respect of all the 12 periods. In the revised Returns the total income shown was far greater than what was shown in the earlier Returns. Income-tax was assessed after the filing of the revised Returns in respect of all the periods in accordance with the 1961 Act. Penalty proceedings were initiated and penalty was levied in respect of each Return under Section 271 (1) (c) (iii) of the 1961 Act. The respondent filed 12 complaints against the appellant alleging commission of offence by him under Section 277 of the 1961 Act. Since the respondent was not quite sure of the legal position, as a matter of abundant precaution 12 more complaints were filed on the same facts to make out commission of offence by the appellant under Section 52 of the 1922 Act. The City Magistrate, Jaipur in whose court all the 24 complaints were filed ordered the tagging of the 12 complaints filed later under Section 52 of the 1922 Act with the complaints filed earlier under Section 277 of the 1961 Act. To all intents and purposes therefore the numerically 24 complaints became 12 complaints for trial of the appellant under Section 277 of the 1961 Act or Section 52 of the 1922 Act as the case may be.

(2.) After the commencement of the trial the appellant in each case filed a petition before the City Magistrate that the launching of the prosecution against him was bad and void in view of the provisions of Section 28 (4) of the 1922 Act read with Article 20 (1) of the Constitution of India. The Magistrate felt persuaded to accept the stand taken on behalf of the appellant and held that he could not be prosecuted after imposition of penalty under the taxing statute and acquitted the appellant in all the cases. The High Court has held that since no penalty was imposed on the petitioner or his firm under Section 28 of the 1922 Act, Section 28 (4) was not a bar to the institution of the prosecution nor was it hit by Article 20 .(1). The High Court did not express any view whether the offence, if any, committed by the appellant fell under Section 277 of the 1961 Act or Section 52 of the 1922 Act. The appeals were allowed and the Magistrate was directed to proceed with the trials in accordance with the law. Hence these appeals.

(3.) The only question falling for our determination in these appeals is whether institution of the prosecution against the appellant for the alleged commission of offences by him under either the 1961 or the 1922 Act was bad in law as being violative of Section 28 (4) of the 1922 Act or Article 20 (1).