9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (8) TMI 24X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... H J.-A complaint under sections 276C and 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called "the Act") was filed by the Income-tax Officer, Ward No. 1, Muktsar, against the respondent, Dr. Usha Gupta, proprietor Bansal Nursing Home, Muktsar, on the ground that the respondent had not shown Rs. 1 lakh in the income-tax return filed by her on August 29, 1988. The respondent was summoned in those proceedings. During the pendency of those proceedings, the respondent filed an application for dropping the criminal proceedings against her. The petitioner pleaded in the application that she is being prosecuted for an offence, that she had paid Rs. 1 lakh to Uniscan and Sonics Ltd., Chandigarh, and this amount has not been shown by the respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner filed a reply to the application. The learned magistrate after hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, dropped the proceedings vide order dated October 13, 1999. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner filed a criminal revision before the Sessions Judge, Faridkot, which was dismissed on June 8, 2002. Aggrieved by which, the present petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed for quashing the orders passed by the courts below. Mr. N.L. Sharda, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the courts below have erred in passing the order dated October 13, 1999, and June 8, 2002. He submitted that after recording the preliminary evidence, the respondent has been summoned to fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or reasons to be recorded by such Magistrate, he considers the charge to be groundless." A bare perusal of the above-quoted section shows that the accused is to be discharged after taking into consideration all the evidence referred to in section 244 and if evidence remains unrebutted, no case is made out against the accused. Sub-section (2) to section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, empowers the magistrate to discharge the accused at any previous stage of the case, if for reasons to be recorded by such magistrate, he considers the charge to be groundless. It has been repeatedly held by the apex court and this court that once the concealment of income has not been proved and the penalty has been deleted by the Income-tax Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been found by the Tribunal that the assessee has not concealed any income or furnished any inaccurate particulars, it cannot be said that the assessee is guilty of an offence as contemplated under section 276C or section 277." Similar view has been taken in Shastri Sales Corporation v. ITO [1998] 229 ITR 628 (Bom); M. A. Quddus v. ITO [1997] 227 ITR 665 (AP) and Asst. CIT v. Thirumal Agencies [1997] 227 ITR 671 (AP). In the instant case, it is the admitted case of the parties that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has waived the penalty. The Revenue filed an application for making reference to this court. The Tribunal declined the application of the Revenue by observing as under: "On further appeal by the assessee, the Tribunal d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
