J P SINGH Vs. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (Assessment)-II, Jaipur, filed a complaint in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Jaipur, under Sections 276C(1) and 277 read with Section 278B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), against the accused-petitioners and their private limited company, Messrs. Registan (P.) Ltd., Jaipur, with the allegations, in short, that in the return of income of the company in respect of the assessment year 1981-82, deductions to the tune of Rs. 1,63,153 and Rs. 4,69,259 were shown as bad debts and commission paid respectively and on an examination of the return and account books, both these amounts were found to have been falsely claimed with a view to evade tax. Accordingly, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (Assessment), Jaipur, added these amounts in the taxable income and assessed the assessee. On appeal by the assessee, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Jaipur, allowed these deductions. THEreafter, the Department filed an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur ; it was allowed and the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was set aside. THE accused-petitioners were in charge of and were responsible to the said company for the conduct of its business. THE said offences were committed by them with an intention to evade tax.

(2.) ON December 5, 1987, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Rajasthan, Jaipur, took cognizance of the said offences against all the accused persons and ordered the issue of non-bailable warrants against the accused-petitioners for their appearance before him on January 5, 1988.

(3.) THERE is no force in the first contention of learned counsel for the accused petitioners. In P. Jayappan v. S.K. Perumal, First ITO [1984] 149 ITR 696 (SC), it has been held that the pendency of the assessment proceedings could not act as a bar to the institution of criminal prosecution for offences punishable under Sections 276C and 277 of the Act. It has further been observed at page 700 as follows :