(1.) Only a short legal question was involved in this petition and I have heard arguments to finally dispose of the petition.
(2.) This petition has been brought under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr. P C'J praying that the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners before the court of Smt. Manju Goel, Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, be quashed.
(3.) The facts leading to the present petition, in brief, are that petitioner No. I, which is a duly registered society (stated to be a obaritable society) had filed income tax return of the assessment year 1981-82 showing a loss of Rs.2.9,73,820.00 . The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner vide order dated March 30, 1984, however, found the return to be wrong and she determined the income of the Society to the tune of Rs. 90,00,000.00 . The Society preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-Tax who vide order dated February 27, 1985, bad set aside the assessment order and remanded the case for de-novo assessment. The petitioner- Society filed an appeal before the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal and before the Tribunal could decide the appeal, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on the basis of the remand order made an assessment order on March 24, 1987, determining the income of the petitioner-Society to the tune of Ks. 1,34,65,810.00 . A criminal complaint was instituted in March 1987 after obtaining the necessary authorisation under Section 279(1) of the Income- Tax Act. I would refer to the contents of the complaint a bit later. In order to complete the happenings, I may mention that the Appellate Tribunal vide its order dated June 18, 1987, held that the Commissioner of Income-Tax was not right in remanding the case and it directed the Commissioner of Income-Tax to decide the appeal against the first assessment order afresh. A finding was given that the Commissioner of Income-Tax had not cared to examine the reasons on the basis of which the appeal was filed against the assessment order and had raised certain suspicions regarding the sources of income of the petitioner-Society which were not the basis of original assessment order and no show cause having been given to the petitioner Society as to why the assessment be not enhanced and thus, it had acted with an error in jurisdiction in not deciding the appeal on merits and in remanding the case back to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner for reassessment. It is now evident that the original assessment order is still intact and appeal filed against that order is yet to be decided by the Commissioner of Income-Tax.