UNION OF INDIA Vs. SHARAD KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application by the Union of India through the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle 1, Patna, has been filed for cancelling the bail granted to the opposite party by this court on April 30, 2001, in Complaint Case No. 394(c) of 1999.

(2.) ACCORDING to the case of the petitioner, the opposite party is one of the partners of Birsa Live Stock Feeds and Additives and a search under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was conducted in the case of Sanwin Pharmaceu-ticals and during such search some documents pertaining to the assessee were seized and notices were sent to all the partners of the aforesaid firm to produce books of account and to furnish information and explanation on various points but there was no compliance and in view of the failure by the assessee accused to comply with the notice under Section 158BC read with Section 158BD and under Section 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, the assessment under Section 144 of the Income-tax Act was made and the amount of tax payable by the firm was determined at Rs. 2,42,31,471. The further case of the petitioner is that during the assessment proceedings of the firm for the block period 1987-88 to 1997-98 it came to light that the firm claimed purchase of medicines worth Rs. 60,08,318 from IVA Laboratories, Nasik during the financial year 1992-93 and one of the partners of the firm of opposite party admittedly sworn an affidavit on February 16,1998, and February 20, 1998, that this claim of purchase was bogus and medicines were never purchased. In the assessment order of the firm for the block period 1987-88 to 1997-98 it has been established beyond doubt that supplies of the medicines and cattle feed to the Animal Husbandry Department, Government of Bihar, as claimed by the firm in the returns of income filed earlier were never made and that wrong claim of expenses in the returns was made on the basis of bogus purchases. The firm and the partners thereof were found to have deliberately and wilfully attempted to evade tax. A show cause notice as to why prosecution should not be launched against the partners of the firm under Sections 276C, 277 and 278 of the Income-tax Act was issued to all partners but no response was received from them, and complaint case was instituted for the offence against the firm and its partners under Sections 276C, 277 and 278 of the Income-tax Act on December 24, 1999 (annexure 1). The prayer of the opposite party for regular bail was rejected by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Patna, on March 28, 2001 (annexure 2). Thereafter, the opposite party moved this court for bail and he was granted bail on April 30, 2001 (annexure 3).