Vijay Bishnoi, J. - (1.) THIS criminal misc. petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer for quashing the Criminal Complaint No. 9/2014 pending in the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offence), Jodhpur Metropolitan (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) for the offences punishable under sections 276(C)(2), 276(C), 278(B)(2) of Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1990 -91 to 1999 -2000 up to 7.4.1999.
(2.) IN the complaint filed by the Assistant Income Tax Commissioner, Circle -2, Income Tax Department, Udaipur, it is alleged that the Assessing Authority of the Income Tax Department has issued assessment order dated 29.04.2003 and as per the same, a demand of Rs. 1,45,10,703/ - was raised against the petitioners. The petitioners challenged the order dated 29.04.2003 before the Commissioner, Income Tax (Appeal), Jaipur (for short 'the Commissioner' hereinafter), however, the same was dismissed vide order dated 11.02.2005. Being aggrieved with the same, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench (hereinafter referred to as 'the I.T.A.T.', and the said appeal was allowed on 29.01.2009 and the matter was remitted to the Assessing Authority for fresh assessment. It is alleged in the complaint that pursuant to the remand order, the Assessing Authority again assessed the income of the petitioners vide assessment order dated 16.12.2010 and issued a demand notice to the petitioners. The said assessment order was challenged by the petitioner before the Commissioner by way of appeal, however, the appeal has been dismissed and till date, the petitioners have not satisfied the demand raised by the Income Tax Department.
(3.) IT is further alleged in the complaint that further appeal preferred by the petitioners against the fresh assessment order dated 16.12.2010 and the order passed by the Commissioner before the I.T.A.T. has been dismissed on 22.07.2013. It is contended that despite dismissal of the appeal by the I.T.A.T., all the three petitioners, who are Directors of TPD Finance Ltd. and responsible to satisfy the demand, have not deposited the amount and, therefore, committed offences punishable under sections 276(C)(2), 276(C), 278(B)(2) of Income Tax Act, 1961.;