9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (8) TMI 19X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aws (Amendment) Act, 1987. In the case on hand, the complaint against the applicants was filed only a day before the said omission. - In the present case, no saving clause, has been prescribed in the Amendment Act. Therefore, applying the dictum as held by the Supreme Court, present prosecution against the applicants is not permissible for imposing punishment under section 276E of the Act. Therefo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Indore (Economic Offence), remanding the case back to the trial court for framing the charge under section 278B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for brevity, "the Act"), and proceeding against the applicants in accordance with law. The contention of counsel for the applicants is that the penal provision, i.e., section 276E of the Act, has been removed from the statute by an amendment dated April 1, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ach of the aforesaid offences. In support of the contention, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on a judgment passed by this court in Parmanand Das Brij Bhushan Das v. Union of India [2001] 249 ITR 328 (Criminal Revisions Nos. 528 to 531 of 1997 decided on February 14, 2001). Similar view has also been taken by this court in the case of Ramchandra v. State of M.P. [2002] 1 Vidhi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble for imposing punishment under section 276E of the Act. Therefore, the orders passed by the appellate court dated August 18, 1999, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 69 of 1995 remanding the case back as well as the judgment dated June 27, 1995, delivered in Criminal Case No. 02 of 1986, are liable to be set aside and the same are, accordingly, set aside. However, the Income-tax Department is free t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
