MEHAR CHAND OM PARKASH Vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MESSRS. Mehar Chand Om Parkash a partnership-firm of Barnala through its partner, Om Parkash, and other partners such as Vidyuwati, wife of Mehar Chand, Smt. Shakuntla Devi, wife of Harish Kumur, and Surinder Kumar, son of Om Parkash, have moved this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the complaint instituted by the Income-tax Officer, Ward 11 (7), for an offence under Section 276e of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

(2.) IT shall be useful to refer to the complaint (annexure P-l) wherein it has been averred that the income-tax return for the year 1986-87 was filed by the partnership-firm in question on July 24, 1986, declaring the income at Rs. 68,376, that the return contained a sum of Rs. 30,000 in the books of the aforesaid firm on March 26, 1980, in the name of one late Sarwan Singh as if it was deposited by him on account of the sale of agricultural land, that during the assessment year 1986-87, it came to notice that the assessee paid sums of Rs. 15,000 each to the son and grandson of late Shri Sarwan Singh and it was in violation of the provisions of Section 269-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961, that a notice was also served on the assessee to explain the entry dated January 18, 1988, and its reply was that the deposit made by Sarwan Singh of Rs. 30,000 was not covered under the definition of the term "deposit" under Section 269t inasmuch as it was repayable on notice or repayable after a particular period. It was further been alleged in the complaint that since no hundi or receipt was issued by the assessee to the aforesaid depositor the aforesaid explanation was not satisfactory and it was for this reason that the aforesaid complaint was instituted which is pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur.

(3.) THE main plea taken in paragraph No. 6 of the present petition is that Section 276e has been omitted with effect from April 1, 1989, by the Act of Parliament passed in the year 1987 and the complaint instituted on March 18, 1990, after the enforcement of the amendment, is liable to be quashed, that the Chief Judicial Magistrate did not apply his mind before passing the impugned order, that Vidyawati and Shakuntla Devi, the two women, never participated in the conduct of the business, that the complaint was required to specifically allege and show as to how "all the partners of the firm" were liable for prosecution, that after the omission of Section 276e, the intention of the Legislature became clear that it never wanted to initiate criminal proceedings after April 1, 1985, that the alleged omission occurred in the year 1986 when the amount in question was paid in cash instead of through a cheque or bank draft.