RAGHUNATH PANDEY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question that calls for answer in this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the Code), is whether the criminal prosecution of the petitioner in Complaint Case No. 418 of 1991, including the order dated September 30, 1991, of the learned Special Court (Economic Offences) taking cognizance under Section 276CC of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), should be quashed in the exercise of inherent powers of this court ?

(2.) THE complaint (annexure-1) filed by the Income-tax Officer alleged that the petitioner-Hindu undivided family is an assessee under the Income-tax Act and through its karta, the petitioner. THE petitioner filed the return of income for the assessment year 1988-89 on March 26, 1990, although the due date for filing the return was July 31, 1988. THE return disclosed a total income of Rs. 60,000 but the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act on a total income of Rs. 1,00,000 (one lakh). THE tax payable on assessed income was Rs. 37,800 out of which Rs. 16,800 had been paid as advance tax. Since the tax payable on regular assessment exceeded Rs. 5,000 and the petitioner had wilfully failed to furnish the return of income in due time as required under Sub-section (1) of Section 139 of the Act, the petitioner had committed an offence punishable under Section 276CC of the Act. THE complainant claimed to be a Government servant, and to have filed the complaint at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax as required under Section 279 of the Act. THE original sanction order was attached with the complaint petition.

(3.) THUS, the allegations made in the complaint taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, prima facie, constitute an offence under Section 276CC of the Act and, hence, the criminal prosecution of the petitioner including the order taking cognizance cannot be quashed in the exercise of the inherent powers of this court. The question posed is, thus, answered in the negative and the application is dismissed as without merit. However, any observations made in the course of the judgment were for the limited purpose of disposal of the application and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.