K.S.KUMARAN,J - (1.) THE Income Tax Officer, Rohtak, the petitioner herein filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rohtak, under Section 276-DD/278B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the respondents herein (case No. 72/2 of 6.4.1989). The case of the petitioner is as follows :-
(2.) THE respondents who are carrying on business of sale and purchase of agriculture implements filed the income tax return for the assessment year 1988-89. They had received cash deposits from 15.4.1987 to 1.5.1987 amounting Rs. 22,000/- and further sum of Rs. 68,812/- on two different dates i.e. 2.3.1988 and 9.3.1988. The depositors have confirmed the deposits by their affidavits. Section 269-SS of the Act provides that no person can take or accept deposit or loan otherwise than by means of account payee cheque or account payee bank draft if the amount of such loan or deposit is Rs. 10,000/- or more in a year. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the respondent who had received the above said amounts in cash have contravened the provisions of Section 269-SS of the Act. The petitioner called upon the respondents, by issuing a show cause notice on 9.2.1989, to explain as to why they should not be prosecuted under Section 276-DD and dissatisfied with the reply by the respondent the petitioner launched the prosecution of the respondents.
(3.) THE learned Judicial Magistrate, by relying upon the decision in Kumari A.B. Shanti v. Assistant Director of Inspection, 197 I.T.R. 330, discharged the respondents by the order dated 19.10.1993.;