Anil Kumar vs The State of Jharkhand and Others

Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.

Heard Mr. Abhishek Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Deepak Roshan, the learned counsel appearing for the Income Tax Department as also the learned counsel for the State.

In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No. 2 of 1998 including the order dated 22.4.1998 passed by the learned Special Judge, Economic Offences, Ranchi, whereby and whereunder, cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable u/s. 276C/277 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Section 192/193/196 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Prosecution story as would appear from the complaint is that a notice was issued to the petitioner under the provisions of Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act and in response thereto it has been stated by the petitioner that the receipts of the Animal Husbandry Department, Ranchi were received on production of fake bills without making any supplies and the assessments were completed under the Act at a total income of Rs. 61,46,563.00. It had further been alleged that the petitioner had deliberately and willfully concealed the income for the assessment year 1995-96 in order to evade income tax liability and accordingly a complaint petition was filed pursuant to which cognizance was taken by the learned Special Judge, Economic Offences, Ranchi vide order dated 22.4.1998 for the offences punishable u/s. 276C/277 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Section 192/193/196 IPC.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no offence has been made out so far as the petitioner is concerned and against the order of assessment for the alleged assessment year i.e. 1995-96, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Circuit Bench, Ranchi.

The learned counsel appearing for the Income Tax Department on the other hand submits that the appeal which was preferred by the petitioner has been disposed of on 10.5.2005 in which although the order for penalty was upheld but the quantum of penalty was reduced by the learned Appellate Tribunal.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, I find that the only plea taken by the petitioner in this application is that against the order of assessment passed in the year 1995-96 and which was the basis of initiation of the present complaint case, he has preferred an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Circuit Bench, Ranchi, which however was disposed of vide order dated 10.5.2005. The certified copy of the order dated 10.5.2005 has been produced by the learned counsel appearing for the Income tax Department and a perusal of which reveals that the penalties imposed upon the petitioner by the assessing authority was sustained and in view of the facts of the case, the assessing officer was directed to levy the minimum penalty of Rs. 2000/- for each year. Therefore, it would appear from the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Circuit Bench, Ranchi that the order of the assessing authority which formed the basis of the complaint was sustained and only the quantum of penalty was reduced. In such circumstances, the plea of the petitioner with respect to the appeal against the order passed by the assessing authority has become redundant.

In view of what has been discussed above, there being no merit in this application, the same is accordingly dismissed.