ROHIT KUMAR SON OF LATE DR. R.N.SINGH, RESIDENT OF SATI MANDIR ROAD, RATU ROAD, P.O.,G.P.O. AND PS SUKHDEO NAGAR, DISTRICT Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole petitioner by invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India has prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case no. C- 25 of 2001, pending in the Court of learned Special Judge, Economic Offences, Ranchi, order taking cognisance of offence under Sections 276 (c) and 277 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and also the order dated 13.02.2015 whereby and whereunder non-bailable warrant of arrest has been issued.

(2.) The Facts of the case in nutshell, which is relevant for determination of the issue involved in this case, is that a complaint was filed by respondent no.2- the Union of India through Income Tax Department, Central Circle, Ranchi before the Special Judge, Economic Offences, Ranchi alleging therein that this petitioner received a sum of Rs. 5,47,950.00 from Animal Husbandry Department whereafter a notice under Sec. 142 (1) of the Income Tax Act ( in short "the Act") was issued directing him to file return of the income but the petitioner filed a return showing only an income of Rs. 15,460.00 on 23.10.1996. Again a notice under Sec. 143(2) of the said Act was filed and in reply to that, the petitioner filed an affidavit stating therein that he did not carry any business either in his name or on behalf of any firm and that since the accused is a minor, it was not possible for him to undertake any contract work or supply any material to Animal Husbandry Department. The entire income should have been assessed in the name of his mother Pranti Singh, Proprietor of Agrovet Industries, but as the payments were shown in the name of Rohit Kumar, the present petitioner, the assessment has been done in his name and penalty proceeding under Sec. 271(1)(b) and 27(1)(c) was initiated by the Assessing Officer. The petitioner went in appeal against the assessment order, but the same was dismissed by C.I.T. (Appeals) on 15.12.1999 holding that the total amount, which has to be paid by the petitioner, comes to Rs. 3,55,384.00 and the petitioner has committed offence under Sec. 276(c) of the Act by wilfully and deliberately concealing the income to avoid payment of tax. Against the said order of Assessing Authority, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, Patna vide M.A.Appeal No. 7/Pat/2002 and during pendency of the said appeal, the complainant-Union of India also filed one complaint case no. C-25 of 2001 before the Special Judge, Economic Offences alleging there in that the petitioner concealed the income with a view to evade the payment of income tax and the court of Special Judge, Economic Offences vide order dated 29.06.2001 took cognisance of the offence under Sec. 276(c) and 277 of the Act.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appeal filed before the Tribunal by the petitioner was allowed by order dated 16.10.2012 holding that the penalty being protective will not stand for legal scrutiny. Hence, they are liable to be cancelled by allowing the appeals of assessee and the penalties levied under Sec. 271(A), 271(1) (c) and 271 (1)(b) of the Act were cancelled. It was also submitted that since the income tax Appellate Tribunal has set aside the order of penalty passed by Assessing Authority as well as by Appellate Authority, the prosecution launched against the petitioner under Sec. 276(c) and 277 of the Act before the Special Judge, Economic Offences, Ranchi are liable to be quashed. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on a judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of K.C. Builders and Another Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2004) 2 SCC 731 and another judgment of this Court dated 22.03.2013 passed in W.P.(Cr.) No. 205 of 2001; M/S. Bhalotia Engineering Works Ltd. & Others Vs. the State of Jharkhand and others . Hence the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioner including the order taking cognisance and all other subsequent orders of the said court are fit to be quashed in view of the ratio decided in the above cases.