9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (11) TMI 63X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) is a registered partnership firm. It is alleged that a search was conducted at the business premises as well as the residential premises of the partners, namely, Kushal Singh and Laxman Singh, under the provisions of section 132(1) of the Act on May 6, 1981. During the course of the search 65 kgs. of silver was found, out of which 16 kgs of silver / silver ornaments were treated as unexplained by the authorised officers of the Income-tax Department. Therefore, the Department included its value amounting to Rs. 32,000 in their income for the assessment year 1982-83 while making the regular assessment. The respondent-assessee explained that the said silver belonged to Shri Mohansingh, Shri Banshilal and Shri Abdul Mazid. After an order unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g of the prosecution. A sanction for the prosecution of the partners of the firm was granted by the order dated May 31, 1988. A complaint was also filed in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Jaipur, for offence under section 276C(1) of the Income-tax Act. The respondent-assessee prayed in the writ petition that the order of the Income-tax Commissioner dated May 31, 1988, passed under section 273A and 273A(4) may be quashed. A further direction was sought for reconsideration of the waiver petition by the tax authority. A further direction was sought to quash the complaint filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Jaipur. The learned single judge refused to interfere with the order impos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provision cannot give a right to a party to insist on the Chief Commissioner or the Director General to make an offer of compounding before the prosecution is launched." Thus, the decision of the learned single judge is clearly untenable so far as it relates to quashing of the prosecution against the respondent-assessee is concerned. However, in view of certain developments which have undertaken during the pendency of the appeal, we do not consider it appropriate to set aside the order of quashing of prosecution and thereby revive the same. In compliance with the direction of the learned single judge and in the absence of an interim order by the Division Bench, the learned trial court by order dated July 17, 1990, has disposed of the pros ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
