INCOME TAX-OFFICER Vs. SHIV LAL MURARI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M /s Shiv Lal Murari Lal is the partnership firm. It is carrying on the business of commission agency at New Mandi, Sirsa. Respondents No. 2 to 4 are its partners. All the partners were stated to be taking keen interest in the conduct of the business of the partnership. For the assessment year 1988-89 return was filed declaring an income of 1,83,600/-. On going through the accounts, it was found that the partnership had credited/paid interest of Rs. 3240/- to Smt. Geeta Devi and Kamal Kishore on 31.3.1988, Rs. 5000/- to Sh. Ganga Jal Kalra on 29.3.1988, Rs. 3183/- to Ashok Kumar Chachan on 31.3.1988; Rs. 6387/- to Pardip Kumar Chachan on 31.3.1988; Rs. 7166/- to Rakesh Kumar on 31.3.1988; Rs. 9803/- to Seeta Devi on 19.3.1988; Rs. 2880/- to Smt. Bala Devi on 31.3.1988; Rs. 7103/- to Bharat Bhushan on 31.3.1988 and Rs. 7920/- to Yogesh Kumar on 29.3.1988. In accordance with Section 194-A of the Income Tax Act, respondent No. 1 did not deduct the amount of tax. It did not obtain Form No. 15-A from the persons mentioned above, when the payments were made to them. However, form No. 15-A were obtained later on in the months of May, 1988 and July, 1988. A show- cause notice was issued to the respondents on 20.3.1989. Their explanation was not satisfactory and was rejected. Since the respondents had not complied with the provisions of Section 194-A of the Income Tax Act, a complaint was filed with respect to the offences punishable under Section 276-B read with Section 278-B of the Income Tax Act.

(2.) NOTICE of the complaint was issued to the respondents. After the pre- charge evidence, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa on 14.9.1991 held that respondents were not duty bound to deduct the income-tax from the amount of interest paid. This was for the reason that respondents had obtained Form 15-A from the persons to whom interest had been paid. Accordingly the respondents were discharged.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents took up the preliminary objection to the effect that since the revision petition had been dismissed and second revision petition is not maintainable, Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure will not be attracted. Sub-section 3 to Section 397 bars second revision petition by the same person. It reads :-