JUDGMENT
P.G. Agarwal, J.
1. This is an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, filed by the petitioner for quashing the Criminal Proceedings No. 316(C) of 1992 initiated by the respondents-Income-tax Department and pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Guwahati.
2. Heard Sri R. Gogoi, senior advocate for the petitioner, and Sri K.P. Sarma appearing for the respondent.
3. Petitioner No. 1 is a partnership firm where petitioners Nos. 2 to 6 are the partners. They filed a return for the year ending August 31, 1980. Subsequently, the assessee submitted a revised return of income, however, it was not accepted by the Income-tax Officer and a higher amount was determined by the Income-tax Department. Computation of total income included a sum of Rs. 82,000 being received by the assessee from certain persons. It has been stated that in their return that assessee-firm made a cash credit for a sum of Rs. 1,70,000 in the name of seven persons. The Income-tax Officer accepted the explanation submitted by the assessee in respect of four firms but rejected it in respect of the total sum of Rs. 82,000 as undisclosed income of the petitioners. The assessee-firm preferred an appeal against the said order and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed the appeal by deleting the said amount. However, the said order was reversed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Thereafter, the present complaint was filed alleging commission of offence under sections 276C and 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
4. The quashing of the complaint has been sought mainly on the ground that the complaint petition does not disclose commission of any offence. However, during the course of arguments learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has been reversed by this court and as such the complainant has got no case for prosecuting the petitioner. There is no dispute at the Bar that the abovementioned reference was decided in favour of the assessee which means that the addition of Rs. 82,000 made by the Income-tax Department held stands deleted.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents–Income-tax Department–has submitted that even if this amount is taken out of the purview of the
complaint petition, still there is some discrepancies/falsehood in the return submitted by the petitioner. On a perusal of the complaint petition I find that the complainant has not stated as to what are the specific false statements alleged to have been made by the assessee and the petitioners wilfully evaded the tax. The only specific allegation is in respect of the sum of Rs. 82,000 which is added as undisclosed income of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, has referred to the authorisation under Section 279 of the Income-tax Act, N. E. Region for prosecution of the petitioner. In view of the decision of the apex court in the case of Md. Iqbal Ahmed v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1979 SC 677, it is well settled that the letter for sanction or consent for prosecution, and authorisation of prosecution must contain the facts constituting the offence. In the above authorisation letter, the only allegation of the petitioner is in respect of addition of Rs. 82,000 as indicated above and as the said addition has been deleted by this court, if this addition of Rs. 82,000 is taken out from the complaint petition, no other offence remains therein. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that at this stage the complaint cannot be thrown out.
6. Upon hearing the submissions made by learned counsel of both sides and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no scope for prosecuting the petitioner for the alleged addition of Rs. 82,000 in the total income for the period ending August 31, 1980. The complaint petition Tiled by the petitioners nowhere mentions any other offence either under Section 276C or 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
7. In the result, the revision is allowed and the proceeding in Case No. 316(C) of 1992 pending in the court of the Chief judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, is hereby quashed.