PREM KUMAR KESHRI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under s. 482 of the Cr.PC has been filed seeking quashing of the prosecution against the petitioner for the offences under ss. 276C and 277 of the IT Act, 1961 (for short "the Act").

(2.) The complaint against the petitioner pertains to offences for the asst. yr. 1988-89 and was filed in January, 1993. On the same day, the learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and issued summons to the petitioner requiring him to appear in the Court. The complainant is the ITO and was himself the AO of the petitioner. It was stated in the complaint that the petitioner was the assessee under the Act and derived income from manufacturing steel boxes, trunks, tools, etc., and that he filed his return of income for the asst. yr. 1988-89 on 19th April, 1990, showing an income of Rs. 16,280. The assessment was completed on a total income of Rs. 1,55,700. The complainant then stated that during the assessment proceeding it was found that the books of account kept by the petitioner were not reliable and the receipts/vouchers, etc., could not be verified and as such Rs. 20,000 was enhanced in the "trading account" of the petitioner on estimate basis. He further made an addition of Rs. 10,000 under the head "remuneration account". Again an addition of Rs. 94,500 was made towards the construction of a house by the petitioner, treating the same to be income from undisclosed sources. It was also mentioned that penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act had also been initiated against the petitioner for concealment of his income. On these facts, it was alleged that the petitioner wilfully attempted to evade tax chargeable or imposable under the Act and he deliberately concealed the particulars of income. It was also alleged that the petitioner signed the verification of the return knowing it to be false and made a statement in verification under the Act or the Rules made thereunder or delivered an account or statement which was false and which he either knew or believed to be false or did not believe to be true. On these averments, it was stated that the petitioner committed offences under ss. 276C and 277 of the Act. Lastly, it was mentioned that the complaint was being instituted at the instance of the CIT as required under s. 279(1) of the Act.

(3.) Mr. Jai Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that from the facts of the case, no offence either under s. 276C or s. 277 of the Act could be said to have been made out, and any continuation of prosecution would be an abuse of the process of the Court. He referred to the subsequent events where the authorities did not say that there was any undisclosed income and additions were made merely on estimate basis, from which it could not be said that any offence under the Act was made out. In my view, he is right in his submissions.