Anil Kumar vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors. on 3 February, 2015

[Cites 11, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Anil Kumar vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors. on 3 February, 2015

Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay

                   Cr. M. P. No. 386 of 2002

      An Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
      Procedure, 1973

      Anil Kumar son of Shri Hansraj Singh, Proprietor,
      Anil Enterprises, resident of Habshi Camp,
      Pisca More, Ranchi                            .....   ....    Petitioner
                                  Versus
      1. The State of Jharkhand, Ranchi
      2. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi
      3. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax,
         Investigation Circle, Ranchi         ..... ....      Opposite Parties

                   PRESENT
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

      For the Petitioner        : Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate
      For the State             : A.P.P.
      For the O.P. No. 2 & 3    : Mr. Deepak Roshan, Advocate
                                ___

Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. Heard Mr. Abhishek Kumar, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Deepak Roshan,
the learned counsel appearing for the Income Tax Department as also
the learned counsel for the State.
            In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing
the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No. 1
of 1998 including the order dated 22.4.1998 passed by the learned
Special Judge, Economic Offences, Ranchi, whereby and whereunder,
cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable u/s 276C/
276CC/276D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Section 192/193/196 of
the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
            Prosecution story as would appear from the complaint is
that a notice was issued to the petitioner under the provisions of Section
142(1) of the Income Tax Act and in response thereto it has been stated
by the petitioner that the receipts of the Animal Husbandry Department,
Ranchi were received on production of fake bills without making any
supplies and the assessments were completed under the Act at a total
income of Rs. 15,92,390.00. It had further been alleged that the
petitioner had deliberately and willfully concealed the income for the
assessment year 1994-95 in order to evade income tax liability and
accordingly a complaint petition was filed pursuant to which cognizance
was taken by the learned Special Judge, Economic Offences, Ranchi
vide order dated 22.4.1998 for the offences punishable u/s 276C/
                                     2.
     276CC/276D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Section 192/193/196 IPC.
           The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no
     offence has been made out so far as the petitioner is concerned and
     against the order of assessment for the alleged assessment year i.e.
     1994-95, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Income Tax
     Appellate Tribunal, Circuit Bench, Ranchi.
           The learned counsel appearing for the Income Tax Department
     on the other hand submits that the appeal which was preferred by the
     petitioner has been disposed of on 10.5.2005 in which although the
     order for penalty was upheld but the quantum of penalty was reduced
     by the learned Appellate Tribunal.
           After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going
     through the records, I find that the only plea taken by the petitioner in
     this application is that against the order of assessment passed in the
     year 1994-95 and which was the basis of initiation of the present
     complaint case, he has preferred an appeal before the Income Tax
     Appellate Tribunal, Circuit Bench, Ranchi, which however was disposed
     of vide order dated 10.5.2005. The certified copy of the order dated
     10.5.2005

has been produced by the learned counsel appearing for the Income tax Department and a perusal of which reveals that the penalties imposed upon the petitioner by the assessing authority was sustained and in view of the facts of the case, the assessing officer was directed to levy the minimum penalty of Rs. 2000/- for each year. Therefore, it would appear from the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Circuit Bench, Ranchi that the order of the assessing authority which formed the basis of the complaint was sustained and only the quantum of penalty was reduced. In such circumstances, the plea of the petitioner with respect to the appeal against the order passed by the assessing authority has become redundant.

In view of what has been discussed above, there being no merit in this application, the same is accordingly dismissed.

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J) Dated the 3rd , February, 2015 Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi MK/N.A.F.R.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Jharkhand High Court