9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Violation of section 269SS of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Prosecution under section 276DD read with section 278B - Quashing of complaint under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Analysis: The judgment pertains to a case where a registered firm and its managing partner were accused of violating section 269SS of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by accepting cash deposits exceeding Rs. 10,000 without using account payee cheques or bank drafts. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax filed a complaint under section 276DD read with section 278B against the accused for contravention of the Act. The accused filed a petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash the complaint and related proceedings, claiming that the provision penalizing the violation of section 269SS was no longer in force after April 1, 1989. The respondent argued that the offence occurred during the assessment year 1986-87 when the provision was applicable, justifying the prosecution. The court held that the repeal of section 276DD did not absolve the accused of the alleged violation committed when the provision was in effect. The court found the complaint valid, stating that the repeal did not impact ongoing legal proceedings for acts committed under the repealed law. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as no grounds for quashing the complaint were established. This judgment highlights the principle that the repeal of a legal provision does not invalidate ongoing legal proceedings for acts committed under the repealed law unless a different intention is explicitly stated. In this case, the accused were prosecuted for violations that occurred during a period when the relevant provision was in force, despite its subsequent repeal. The court emphasized that the repeal of a law does not automatically absolve individuals of liability for past actions governed by the repealed provision. The judgment underscores the importance of adherence to legal provisions during the period of their applicability, regardless of subsequent changes in the law. It serves as a reminder that legal consequences may persist for actions taken when specific laws were in effect, even if those laws are later repealed or amended. Overall, the judgment reaffirms the principle of legal continuity, emphasizing that the repeal of a law does not nullify legal consequences for actions taken under that law. It underscores the need for compliance with applicable legal provisions during the relevant period and highlights that individuals can be held accountable for violations committed when specific laws were in force, even if those laws are subsequently repealed. The judgment provides clarity on the interpretation of legal provisions and their application to past actions, ensuring that legal proceedings can continue for offences committed during the period of a law's validity, despite its subsequent repeal.
|
