Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Lucas T. V. S. Ltd. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
head note: income tax reassessment under s. 147--informationopinion of audit party catch note: opinion of audit party regarding application or interpretation of law did not amount to information therefore, reassessment based on opinion of audit party was not valid. case law analysis: cit v. lucas t. v. s. ltd. (1998) 234 itr 296 (mad) affirmed. application: also to current assessment year. decision: in favour of assessee. income tax act 1961 s.147(b) in the supreme court of india s. p. bharucha, n. santosh hegde & y. k. sabharwal jj. - code of criminal procedure, 1973.[c.a. no. 2/1974]. section 468: [c.k. thakker & tarun chatterjee, jj] bar of limitation delay in prosecution effect held, the general rule of criminal justice is that a crime never dies. the principle is reflected in the well known maximum nullum tempus aut locus occurit regi (lapse of time is no bar to crown in proceeding against offenders). the limitation act, 1963 does not apply to criminal proceedings unless there are express and specific provisions to that effect, for instance, articles 114, 115, 131 and 132 of the act. a criminal offence is considered as a wrong against the state and the society even though it has been committed against an individual. normally, in serious offences, prosecution is launched by the state and a court of law has no power to throw away prosecution solely on the ground of delay. mere delay in approaching a court of law would not be itself afford a ground for dismissing the case though it may be a relevant circumstance in reaching a final verdict. mere delay may not bar the right of the crown in prosecuting criminals. but it also cannot be overlooked that no person can be kept under continuous apprehension that he can be prosecuted at any time for any crime irrespective of the nature or seriousness of the offence. people will have no peace of mind if there is no period of limitation even for petty offences. -- section 468: bar to taking cognizance of offence period of limitation computation held, for the purpose of computing the period of limitation regarding bar as to taking of cognizance of offence by magistrate, the relevant date must be considered as the date of filing of complaint or initiating criminal proceedings and not the date of taking cognizance by a magistrate or issuance of process by a court. in the instance case, the complaint was filed within a period of three days from the date of alleged offence. the complaint, therefore, must be held to be filed within the period of limitation even though cognizance was taken by the magistrate after a period of one year. [chandra sekhar mohanty v japani sahoo, 2007 cri lj noc 149 (ori) reversed; jagannathan & ors. v state, 1983 cri lj 1748 (mad); court on its own motion v sh shankroo, 1983 cri lj 63 (hp); shyam sunder sarma v state of assam & ors. 1988 cri lj 1560 (gau); bipin kalra v state, 2003 cri lj (noc) 51 (delhi); dr. harihar nath garg v state of m.p., (2003) 3 crimes 412 (mp); dandapani & ors v state by s.i. of police, tiruvannamalai town, (2002) 1 crimes 675 (mad); aru v state, 1993 mad lw (cri) 127 were overruled]. orderwe have heard learned counsel for the revenue. despite his very persuasive argument, we are, on the facts available to us, unable to take a view other than that taken by the tribunal and the high court.the appeals are dismissed.no order as to costs.

Judgment:
ORDER

We have heard learned counsel for the Revenue. Despite his very persuasive argument, we are, on the facts available to us, unable to take a view other than that taken by the Tribunal and the High Court.

The appeals are dismissed.

No order as to costs.