PRAKASH CHAND BHANWAR LAL Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr. PC for quashing the proceedings pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Jaipur in Criminal Complaint No. 53 of 1913.

(2.) THE brief facts giving rise to this case are that the complainant Income Tax Officer 'B' Ward, Beawar under the directions of the Commissioner of Income Tax Jaipur, alleged to have been obtained on 21st March, 1983, submitted a complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences) Jaipur alleging that the petitioner No. 1 firm, which is having its office in Bijaynagar, district Ajmer was being regularly assessed with Income Tax Officer, Beawar. The return for the assessment year 1978 -79 alleged to have been submitted on 20th November, 1979 before the Income Tax Officer, 'A' Ward, Beawar in the status of registered firm declaring total income of Rs. 64,572/ -. It was alleged that since declaration in form No. 12 under Sections 184(7) of the Income tax Act was not available on the record, a duplicate signed by all the partners was alleged to have been submitted on 13 -3 -1980/81. It was further alleged that accused No. 1 produced the acknowledgement receipt No. G -303462, dated 28th June, 1978 before the then Income Tax Officer, 'A' Ward, Beawar in support of having filed his form No. 12 earlier and the I.T.O. 'A' Ward satisfying himself made the following endorsement: Seen acknowledgement receipt No. 303462 (G -303462) dated 28 -6 -1978 produced today. Form No. 12 in the above case (by the Assessee A/R Shri F.S. Meratwal. and it is alleged that on the basis of this, the said I.T.O., 'A' Ward Shri S.K. Sharma allowed continuation of registration vide order dated 13th March, 1981 and completed the assessment under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the return submitted by the party. It is further alleged that it came to the notice of I.T.O., 'B' Ward, Beawar Shri M. Compani that this acknowledgement receipt bearing the same number was produced in the name of M/s Kabra & Co. as evidence having filed form No. 12 for the assessment year 1978 -79 and in view of this development, it is alleged that the assesses was asked by the I.T.O., 'A' Ward to file the duplicate copy of form No. 12 and produce the proof of having filed the original in time. It is alleged that the duplicate copy was submitted along with the affidavit of Bhanwar Lal partner. However, accused No. 1 did not produce the original evidence, i.e. acknowledgment receipt No. G -303462 issued by the department. It was further alleged that verifications of the offices copy of the receipt revealed that the same was. actually issued to one Ram Krishan Shri Kishan and no acknowledgement receipt was issued in the name of firm accused No. 1. It was further alleged that in fact no declaration of continuation of registration in form No. 12 was ever submitted and a bogus duplicate of form No. 12 was placed on 13th March, 1980/81 and thus the benefit of continuation of registration in the status of the registered firm was obtained by fraud. It was further alleged that, accused No. 4 under capacity of a partner has submitted a duplicate copy along with affidavit to the then I.T.O., 'A' Ward, Beawar and thus caused circumstances to exist which had, the effect of enabling accused No. 1 and accused No. 4 to evade tax. Accused Nos. 2 to 5 were Incharge of and responsible to accused No. 1 for conduct of business of accused No. 1 during the assessment year 1978 -79 and they were also liable for offences under Section 276(c) of the Income Tax Act. It was alleged that the facts mentioned above constitute the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC read with Section 511, 471, 193, & 196, IPC read with Section 120B, IPC. This complaint was filed under the signatures of Shri G.C. Jain, I.T.O., 'B' Ward, Beawar and list of 8 documents was given in support of the complaint. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate(Economic Offences), Jaipur took cognizance of the offence.

(3.) MR . Surolia is justified in arguing that it cannot be a universal rule that if the Tribunal takes a different view, the jurisdiction of the Criminal Court to investigate facts alleged is ousted, need not be decided. In a given case this may happen and therefore as a proposition of law. I am inclined to accept the contention of Mr. Surolia. However, it ail depends upon each case and facts and circumstances of it.