JUDGMENT
V. K. SINGHAL, J. :
This writ petition has been filed with the prayer to quash the order dt. 3rd Nov., 1987, passed under s. 279(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act”), and also to set aside the criminal complaint and the proceedings pending in the Court of the Special Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Jaipur, in Criminal Case No. 282 of 1987.
2. In the order dt. 3rd Nov., 1987, the CIT found that the assessee wilfully attempted to evade tax, penalty and interest on Rs. 6,32,446 which it claimed as alleged bad debts and alleged payment of commission, etc. It was held that the assessee had committed an offence punishable under s. 276C(1) of the Act. The entries of bad debts of Rs. 1,63,153 were made on the last date of the relevant asst. yr. 1981-82. A sum of Rs. 4,74,062 was claimed as export promotion expenses of which the details were not furnished and subsequently it was informed that it was commission paid to a foreign agent and the entry was also passed on the last date of the previous year through a journal. The account of the commission agent was not credited and the additions were deleted by the CIT(A). The matter was challenged before the Tribunal where the additions of Rs. 46,145, Rs. 35,418 and Rs. 53,349 were upheld and the order of the CIT(A) was reversed. With regard to the commission of Rs. 4,69,259 for Paul Comar, the order passed by the IAC (Assessment) was restored and that of the CIT(A) was reversed. A miscellaneous application was made against the order dt. 28th May, 1987, passed by the Tribunal and the matter was restored to the file of the IAC for re-examination of allowing the bad debts in the light of the evidence sought to be placed of the persons being IT assessees, assessments being made on them, demands raised but not being capable of enforcement. The re-examination is limited to this extent only and the re-examination shall not apply to advance provided to Lloyd Sales Corporation of an amount of Rs. 3,500. In the light of the order passed on the miscellaneous application, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the prosecution must be quashed and for that purpose reliance has been placed on the case of Uttam Chand vs. ITO (1982) 133 ITR 909 (SC), wherein on the basis of the decision of the Tribunal that the firm was a genuine one, the prosecution for filing a false return was quashed. Reliance has also been placed on the decision in the case of Kamaljeet Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (S. B. Criminal Misc. Appln. No. 28 of 1988), wherein the petitioner was directed to move an application before the trial Court along with a certified copy of the order relied upon with the direction that the trial Court would pass an appropriate order for dropping the proceedings after taking into consideration the facts of the case. It was also observed that the Court hopefully expected that, in the changed circumstances, the Department would withdraw the prosecution to show its bona fides. In the present case, a copy of the order passed by the IAC (Assessment) with regard to bad debts has not been placed and, therefore, what would be the effect of the order of the Tribunal cannot be considered. If according to the petitioner, the Departmental authorities have given any finding in favour of the petitioner from which it could be said that no offence has been committed by the company, the petitioner is free to produce such a document before the trial Court, but looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly that the order of the IAC (Assessment) after remand has not been produced, it will not be proper to interfere in the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.
3. Consequently, the writ petition stands disposed of with the directions given above.