Bakhshish Kaur J. - (1.) THIS is a petition for quashing the complaint annexure P-15, dated March 30, 1984, filed by the Income Tax Officer, Central Circle-III, Ludhiana, under section 277 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), pertaining to the assessment year 1973-74. The brief facts of the case are recapitulated as under : Raja Mechanical Works, the accused (hereinafter referred to as "the petitioner"), is a registered firm engaged in the manufacture and sale of cycle parts at Ludhiana. The constitution of the firm is as under Narinder Singh 65 per cent. Harbans LA 35 per cent.
(2.) THE return of income for the assessment year 1973-74 filed on 15-9-1973, was duly verified by Narinder Singh, partner, by means of a declaration dated September 14, 1973. THE total income shown was Rs. 31,608 under the head "Business income". It was accompanied by a trading account, profit and loss account and balance-sheet. On 14-11-1975, the CIA staff, Ludhiana, had seized the account books of the petitioner-firm. Cash book and ledger for the financial year 1973-74, summoned by Shri R. D. Mann, Income Tax Officer, under section 131 of the Act, were produced by the CIA Staff, Ludhiana, and these taken were into possession as per order passed under section 131(3) of the Act dated 7-3-1980. On the examination of the impounded books, it was revealed that the total value of the plant and machinery shown as on 31-3-1993, in the balance-sheet was Rs. 1,06,729.41 as against the value of Rs. 1,71,323.13. THE total sundry debtors in the balance-sheet filed with the return have been shown at Rs. 1,02,857.28 as on 31-3-1973, as against Rs. 1,19,885.37 in the list prepared from the impounded books. It is, therefore, alleged that the assessee-firm by overstating its liabilities and understating its assets in the balance-sheet has concealed particulars of its actual income and has also made a false statement in the verification, rendering itself liable under section 277 of the Act for the assessment year 1973-74. The petitioner seeks the quashing of the complaint, annexure P-15, on the grounds that there was no assessment order in existence on the date of filing of the complaint, nor was there cause of action on the basis of which the complaint could be filed. Secondly, a plain reading of the case does not make out a case against the petitioner as the assessment made by the Income Tax Officer underwent a sea-change. Thirdly, a fresh assessment for the assessment year 1973-74 had been made and the Income Tax Officer again found the taxable income as Rs. 2,85,140 which had been further appealed against and the Commissioner (Appeals) granted relief out of the said amount to the extent of Rs. 1,64,000 apart from other rebates. Against this order, the petitioner has filed an appeal for further relief to which he entitled. It is further alleged that the complaint is barred by time under section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code").
(3.) THE respondent in its written reply has admitted the factual position of this case but it is denied that the complaint is barred by time. Inter alia, it is pleaded that the case in hand relates to the economic offence which is covered under the Act. THErefore, the period of limitation mentioned in section 468 of the Code would not apply as is clear from the inapplicability of limitation mentioned in the Economic Offences Act, 1968. It is also averred that the basis of prosecution is the concealment of income found/false statement made by the assessee in the return of income and that the criminal court has to decide the case on the basis of evidence before it. THErefore, the petition under section 482 of the Code is not competent. I have heard Shri Sunil Chadha, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Shri R. P. Sawhney, senior advocate assisted by Shri Rajesh Bindal, advocate.;