A.S.NEHRA,J - (1.) M /s. General Finance Company, Patiala Gate, Sangrur, is a registered firm, Petitioner No. 2 is the managing partner of the firm. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle II(I), Ludhiana, filed a complaint against the petitioners under section 276-DD read with section 278-B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The complaint was filed on the allegations that the petitioners submitted their income-tax return on 25.7.1986. It is further alleged that M/s. General Finance Company is accused No. 1, whereas Shri Bhagwant Singh, its Managing Partner, is accused No. 2 and as a Managing Partner during the assessment year 1986-87 he was responsible for conduct of the business of the firm during that period. It is further alleged that accused No. 1 provides finance to the transporters for which it accepts deposits from various persons and derives income from difference in interest paid to the depositors and the interest charged from the transporters and loans are provided after the loanees endorse the registration of vehicles financed by the accused-firm in its favour. It is further stated in the complaint that the accused-firm filed its return of income-tax along with the statement of accounts and document's for the assessment year 1986-87 on 25.7.1986 duly signed and verified by its Managing Partner, accused No. 2. It is further alleged that the assessment was completed by the complainant on 22.2.1989. During the assessment proceedings, the then Income Tax Officer observed that the accused had accepted the following deposits exceeding Rs. 10,000/- otherwise than by account-payee cheque or account-payee Bank draft from the following depositors and had thus violated the provisions of section 269-SS of the Act :- Sr. No. Name of Depositor Amount Date of Deposit. 1. Shri Amar Singh s/o 40,000/- 28.11.1985. Shri Partap Singh r/o 10,000/- 30.11.1985. Bauran Gate, Nabha. 2. Shri Gurdev Singh s/o 20,000/- 5.7.1985. hri Jagir Singh V. and P.O. Sohian Tehsil Jagraon 3. Shri Hardev Singh s/o 32,000/- 13.5.1985. Shri Phuman Singh r/o Village Jhamat Tehsil Ludhiana
(2.) IT is further stated in the complaint that the Income Tax Officer sought the explanation from the accused-firm by issuing show-cause notice dated 18.5.1987 as to why prosecution may not be launched against the accused for contravention of the provisions of section 269-SS of the Act. It is further alleged in the complaint that the accused were not able to show any reasonable cause or excuse for their failure to comply with the mandatory provisions of law, and, therefore, they were liable to be prosecuted under section 276-DD read with section 278-B of the Act. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the complaint, Annexure P-1, and other proceedings arising thereform pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur. It is alleged that, after 1.4.1989, violation of the provisions of section 269-SS was no more penal and the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax has wrongly filed the complaint.
(3.) NOTICE of this petition was given to the respondent. Written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondent. It is stated in the written statement that petitioner No. 1 is a registered firm and petitioner No. 2 was the partner of the firm; that the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, respondent, lodged the complaint against the petitioners in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur, on the ground that the petitioner-firm filed its return of income-tax along with statement of accounts and documents for the assessment year 1986-87 on 25.7.1986; that the assessment was completed on 22.2.1989, in which it was found that the petitioner-firm had accepted cash exceeding Rs. 10,000/- from Sarvshri Hardev Singh, Gurdev Singh and Amar Singh, that, therefore, the petitioner-firm had violated the provisions of section 269-SS of the Act and are liable to be prosecuted under section 276-DD read with section 278-B of the A ct. It has been stated in paragraph 5 of the written statement that the contention of the accused that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was not competent to take cognizance of this case, as section 276-DD of the Act had been deleted from the Act with effect from 1.4.1989, is not correct, because of the fact that the offence was committed by the accused during the assessment year 1986-87 relevant to the period from 1.4.1985 to 31.3.1986. It is further submitted in the reply that during the assessment year, in question, the relevant provision of the Act under which the accused have been prosecuted was in force and the accused is being prosecuted in accordance with the provisions prevailing at the time of commission of the offence. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the contravention of provisions of section 269-SS of the Act was punishable under section 276-DD of the Act but section 276-DD of the Act was omitted with effect from 1.4.1989 and that, at the time when the complaint was filed, the violation of the provisions was no longer penal and the complaint filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax is not maintainable. However, this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners does not hold good. It is correct that section 276-DD of the Act was omitted with effect from 1.4.1989, but the contravention was alleged to have been made by the petitioners in the year 1985. Unless a different intention appears, the repeal does not affect, inter alia, any investigation, legal proceedings or remedy in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation, liability, penalty etc. Prima facie it was open for the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax to launch prosecution in respect of acts or commissions committed during the period of provisions of repealed or unmended sections were operative. Section 276-DD of the Act was in operation at the time the payments were alleged to have been accepted by the petitioners and subsequent repeal of the section will not exonerate the petitioners of the violation, if any, committed by them. The allegations made in the complaint prima facie make out a case against the petitioners. No ground for quashing the complaint is made out and I find that the petition is without any merit and the same is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.;