(1.) Petitioner, who is an income-tax assessee, had filed return for the assessment year 1992-93 on 29.8.1992, the due date being 31.8.1992, declaring his total income as Rs.49,300/- from salary and meeting fee etc. It was stated in this return that during this year he had received an amount of Rs.2,55,000/- from the NRE account under the Foreign Remittance (Immunities) Scheme, 1991. The petitioner had filed original copy of declaration dated 30.1.1992 purportedly stamped and signed by the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Race Course Road, Bangalore, as a proof of receipt of the said amount. On this return, Order of Assessment dated 26.2.1993 was passed and tax demand of Rs.1,67,441/- was raised against the petitioner. In the assessment order, the Income-Tax Officer (for short, 'ITO') observed that the aforesaid amount of Rs.2,55,000/- had actually come from the Resident Depositor's Account and not from the NRE account. The Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Race Course Road, Bangalore, also intimated vide his letter dated 22.12.1992 that no such declaration in favour of the petitioner had been issued by the Bank. The aforesaid sum of Rs.2,55,000/- was, therefore, added to the income of the petitioner as income from undisclosed sources. For this suppression, show-cause notice dated 11.3.1993 was also issued asking the petitioner to show-cause as to why prosecution under Section 276-C(1) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') be not initiated against him. The petitioner submitted his replies dated 15th and 18th March 1983 stating that he had not committed any willful fraud and lapse was only on the part of the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Race Course Road, Bangalore. He also stated that in the meantime he had approached the Settlement Commission for settling his case. Not satisfied with this reply, Shri S.S. Jain, ITO, filed a criminal complaint under Section 276-C(1) of the Act against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner had willfully attempted to evade tax, penalty or interest chargeable/imposable under the Act and also willfully caused other circumstances to exist, which had an effect of enabling him to evade tax, penalty or interest chargeable/imposable under the Act or the payment thereof and was, thus, liable for having committed offence under Section 276-C(1) of the Act. On receipt of the complaint, cognizance thereof was taken and the learned ACMM summoned the petitioner vide order dated 31.3.1993. Challenging these summoning orders the present petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking quashing of the said orders and proceedings in the criminal complaint.
(2.) The main ground which is taken in the petition is that the complainant altogether ignored the fact that the moment an application for settlement is filed before the Settlement Commission, the authority which is to decide whether or not a complaint should be filed or an action for prosecution should be taken, is the Settlement Commission and there is no jurisdiction with the complainant to launch such a prosecution till the decision of the said application by the Settlement Commission.
(3.) It may be noted that during the pendency of this petition, the Settlement Commission ultimately passed order dated 30.11.1994. Certain other developments also took place and for bringing these events on record the petitioner filed supplementary affidavit dated 22.4.1997. In this affidavit, following developments are brought on record:-