9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (2) TMI 30X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was filed on the allegations that the petitioners submitted their income-tax return on March 15, 1990, at Rs. 52,050 and the assessment was completed at a net taxable income of Rs. 54,050, vide order dated October 30, 1990. During the course of assessment proceedings, the then Income-tax Officer found that the assessees had accepted Rs. 17,000 on June 24, 1988, Rs. 40,000 on September 6, 1988, Rs. 12,000 on October 1, 1988, in cash from Shri Milkhi Ram, son of Kalu Ram, and they accepted Rs. 10,000 in cash from Shri Milkhi Ram, son of Bihari Lal, on May 13, 1988, otherwise than by account payee cheque or account payee draft in contravention of the provisions of section 269SS of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Petitioners Nos. 2 to 5 were partner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... further maintained that although sections 276DD and 276E were omitted by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, yet the violation of the provisions prior to the date of omission remained penal and the petitioners were prima facie liable for the offence for which they were summoned. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. A perusal of the complaint as filed by the respondent in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur, shows that the complaint was filed under section 276DD read with section 278B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (assessment year 1989-90) and the petitioners were alleged to have contravened the provisions of section 269SS of the Income-tax Act by accepting various amounts other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the abovereferred section. It was argued on behalf of the petitioners that the contravention of the provisions of section 269SS was punishable under section 276DD, but that section was omitted with effect from April 1, 1989, and at the time when the assessment return was submitted by the petitioners, the violation of the provisions was no longer penal and the complaint was filed by the Income-tax Officer by misusing his powers. This contention of learned counsel, however, does not hold good. It is correct that section 276DD was omitted with effect from April 1, 1989, but the contravention was alleged to have been made by the petitioners in the year 1988. Unless a different intention appears, the repeal does not affect, inter alia, any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ible to the firm for the conduct of the business of the firm at the time of the alleged offence and so it was held that no criminal liability could be fixed on them and the complaint as well as all the proceedings taken in consequence thereof against those persons were quashed. This authority is not applicable to the facts of the present case as in paragraph No. 6 of the complaint it is specifically mentioned that all the partners of the firm were directly connected and were in charge of and were responsible to the firm for the conduct of its business. So, it cannot be said that there are no averments to that effect. The question whether they were sleeping partners and they had nothing to do with the conduct of business of the firm is to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
