Tota Ram Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- y. r. meena, j. :by this petition, the petitioner has prayed that proceedings in crl. case no. 37/85 be quashed.2. there was a search at the premises of petitioner on 20th may, 1983. the department assessed the income of the petitioner under s. 132(5) of the it act (hereinafter, referred as the act) at rs. 33,500. the petitioner has filed the return declaring his income rs. 25,430. it was assessed at rs. 46,360 and finally assessed at rs. 27,360 on the basis of addition of rs. 1,930; the penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) of the act were initiated and penalty of rs. 8,364 was imposed. that penalty was cancelled by dy. cit(a) vide his order dt. 24th march, 1992 holding that mere addition does not attract the penalty automatically. no case of penalty was made out. when two opinions were available for concealment of income, the benefit goes to assessee, therefore, the penalty under s. 271(1)(c) of the act was cancelled by dy. cit(a).simultaneously, a complaint under s. 256(1)(c) of the act has been filed by the department against the petitioner. the criminal proceedings are still pending in the trial court. by this petition under s. 482 crpc it is prayed that those proceedings be quashed/dropped.3. mr. amar singh, learned counsel for the respondent submits that mere cancellation of the penalty does not justify to quash criminal proceedings. i agree with mr. amar singh that mere cancellation of penalty is not enough to drop the criminal proceedings, but, if in addition to the fact of cancellation of penalty which was imposed under s. 271(1)(c) of the act, other facts also taken into account and no justification is found to continue such proceedings, the criminal proceedings can be quashed. the facts are not in dispute that the complaint was filed in the trial court as back as in 1985. it is still pending in that court. the criminal proceedings are initiated only on the ground of addition of rs. 1,930 that is meagre amount. the petitioner has already faced criminal trial for a long time and thereby he suffered mental agony and also incurred expenses on litigation. the dy. cit(a) has also observed in his order that there are two opinions possible on the record of the case that whether petitioner has intentionally concealed the income of rs. 1,930 or not. when two opinions are possible, the benefit always goes to the assessee and on that anology, the penalty was cancelled and that order has not been challenged by the department. therefore, that order has become final.mr. amar singh has not disputed all these aforesaid facts. considering the above undisputed facts and the view taken by this court in the case of lalls gems & jewels & anr. vs. ito, decided on 19th september, 1988, in the interest of justice, i do not find any justification to allow this proceeding to continue further more. there should be an end to such proceedings. in the interest of justice, i hereby quash the criminal proceedings of crl. case no. 37/85.4. the petition is allowed as indicated above.