K.P.S.SANDHU, J. - (1.) SIX petitioners, namely, O. C. T. Agencies, P. O. Four Fields, G. T. Road, Amritsar, Joginder Lal Mehra, Satish Mehra, Sudhir Mehra, Satish Kumar Kapur and Smt. Kiran Mehra, have filed this petition under S. 482 Cr.PC praying therein that the complaint dt. 8th Jan., 1985 filed by the respondent against the petitioners, be quashed.
(2.) PETITIONERS Nos. 2 to 6 are partners of O. T. C. Agencies, P. O. Four Fields, G. T. Road, Amritsar. On 31st July, 1979, the firm O. C. T. Agencies filed the income tax return for the year 1979-80. A part of the documents filed with the return were signed by Satish Kumar Kapur and certain documents were signed by Sudhir Mehra another partner of the firm, and Sudhir Mehra is accused No. 5 in the complaint. However, the verification was done by Satish Kumar Kapur on all the documents. Satish Kumar Kapur is accused No. 7 in the complaint filed by the Department regarding the aforesaid return. On 31st March, 1982 an addition of Rs. 9,90,000 was made to the trading account of the firm by the IT Department. However, the firm went in appeal. The amount was reduced to Rs. 6,85,236 from Rs. 9,90,000 addition. On further appeal to the Tribunal, by the firm, it was further reduced to Rs. 90,800 only, under S. 40A(3) of the IT Act. The CIT vied his order dt. 26th July, 1985, deleted the addition made by the Department and held that there is no concealment. Consequently, the penalty imposed was deleted. However, on 8th Jan., 1985, a complaint under Ss. 276c and 277 of the IT Act was filed against the petitioners and other partners by the ITO, Central Circle-I, Amritsar.
(3.) BHAGIRATH Dass, Sr. Advocate, ld. counsel for the petitioners have contended at the outset that it is nowhere alleged by the complainant that Joginder Pal Mehra, Satish Mehra, Sudhir Mehra and Smt. Kiran mehra were incharge of, and responsible for the conduct of the business of the firm at the time of the alleged commission of the offence. Therefore, no criminal liability can be fixed upon them. He has taken me through the provisions of S. 278B of the IT Act, which read as under : "(1) Where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company, every person who, at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company as well as the company shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly : Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such person liable to any punishment if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he had exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence. (2) xx xx xx xx xx xx." ;