9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Quashing of charges under section 277 of the Income Tax Act and section 193 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. Analysis: The judgment pertains to a petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash charges under section 277 of the Income Tax Act and section 193 of the Indian Penal Code framed against the petitioner by a Judicial Magistrate. The petitioner, a partner in a firm, was accused of filing a false return for the assessment year 1965-66, along with other partners of the firm. The charges included fabricating false evidence before the income-tax authorities. However, the petitioner had neither signed the return nor made any statement to fall under the purview of section 277 of the Income Tax Act. The respondent argued that even a partner of a firm is covered under the penal provisions of section 277 of the Income Tax Act, citing section 278B. Nevertheless, section 278B was inserted in the Act in 1975, whereas the return in question pertained to the year 1965-66. The court referenced the decision in CIT v. Jagdish Lal Behl, where it was held that applying section 278B retrospectively would violate the constitutional principle against ex post facto laws. This view was supported by the Allahabad High Court in Rajendra Prasad Agarwal v. ITO. The court concluded that based on the facts presented in the complaint and preliminary evidence, the petitioner could not be proceeded against under section 277 of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the charges against the petitioner were quashed, allowing the Magistrate to continue proceedings against the other accused individuals in accordance with the law.
|
