PUSHPA MAINI Vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Income-tax Officer, Circle-11, Patiala, filed a complaint against M/s G. R. Machine Tools, Sirhind and eight other partners of the firm for offences under Sections 276c and 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short), in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala. The income-tax return for the assessment year 1979-80 was signed and verified by Dev Raj Dhiman, accused No. 3. In the trial court, an application was filed by accused Nos. 2 and 4 to 9 who are the partners of M/s G. R. Machine Tools praying that proceedings against them be dropped. After hearing counsel for the parties, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate allowed the application and dropped the proceedings against accused Nos. 4 to 9. Accused No. 2 had since expired. Aggrieved by this order dated November 5, 1986, the complainant filed a revision petition which was allowed by Shri M. L. Singhal, Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, who held that the order of discharge passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate was premature as it will be a matter of evidence as to whether partners other than Dev Raj Dhiman were or were not responsible for the conduct of the business of the firm. It is against this order dated October 30, 1987, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, that the present revision petition has been filed by accused Nos. 4 to 9, i. e. , partners of M/s G. R. Machine Tools, Sirhind.

(2.) I have heard Mr. Hemant Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. R. P. Sawhney, learned counsel for the respondent.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY, in the complaint, it was not alleged that the petitioners were either in charge of or responsible for the conduct of the business of the firm. It was contended that Dev Raj alone was liable as he was the managing partner and in charge of the firm and the rest of the partners were neither in charge of nor responsible for the conduct of the business of the firm and as such were not liable for any offence under the Act.