Mohan Lal And Others v. The Income Tax Officer District 1(4), Patiala

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.Revision No.737 of 1992 (O&M) Date of Decision: 23.7.2009 Mohan Lal and others. ....... Petitioners through Shri A.K. Jain, Advocate. Versus The Income Tax Officer District 1(4), Patiala. ....... Respondent through Nemo. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? .... Mahesh Grover,J. This revision petition is directed against order dated 1.10.1992passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala (hereinafter described as`the appellate Court') vide which order dated 23.5.1989 of the JudicialMagistrate Ist Class, Patiala (referred to hereinafter as `the trial Court') wasset aside. At the out-set, learned counsel for the petitioner contended thatin similar circumstances, Criminal Revision No.736 of 1992 arising out oforder dated 1.10.1992 of the appellate Court was accepted by this Courtvide order dated 9.10.2002. He has placed on record a copy of the saidjudgment. It is the contended case of the petitioners that the complaint .... preferred by the respondent was against M/S Gunna Ram Mohan Lal, NewGrain Market, Patiala through its partner, Shri Mohan Lal; Shri Gunna Ramand Shri Mohan Lal and the following averments were made in paragraph13 thereof:- “13. Sh. Wazir Chand s/o Ghunna Ram, Partner of M/SGhunna Ram Mohan Lal, New Grain Market, Patiala, madestatement in verification in the original return, whichverification was necessary under the provision of Income TaxAct and Rules made thereunder and delivered an account ofincome which was false and which he and other partners of theassessee firm know or believe to be false and did not believeto be true. Sh. Mohan Lal, Wazir Chand and Ghunna Ram,partners of M/S Ghunna Ram Mohan Lal, New Grain Marketwere incharge of and responsible to the said firm for theconduct of the business of the said firm at the time of offenceswere committed and as such, aforesaid firm and S/Shri MohanLal, Ghunna Ram, partners were liable to be prosecuted for thecommission of the offences committed by them. The saidoffences were committed with the consent and connivance ofthe said partners and for that reasons, also they are liable to beprosecuted for the commission thereof. They, thus, committedan offence punishable u/s 277 of the Income Tax Act. Theassessee firm also willfully attempted to conceal its income toevade the payment of tax and thereby the aforesaid firm and its .... partners committed an offence punishable u/s 276-C of theIncome Tax Act,1961.” It has been pointed out that Shri Wazir Chand was also apartner in M/S Ghunna Ram and Sons, Patiala against which the complaintunder the similar provisions of law was the subject-matter of CriminalRevision No. 736 of 1992. He further pointed out that the return ofincome of the firm was filed by Shri Wazir Chand in the instant case as wellas in the case relating to the aforesaid revision petition and that he has sinceexpired. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that at the time offiling of the complaint, Shri Wazir Chand was not alive and thereafter,another partner of the firm, namely, Shri Ghunna Ram also expired and onlyMohan Lal survives. He further submitted that since there is no averment inthe complaint as to whether Mohan Lal was incharge of the affairs of thefirm, he cannot be vicariously held liable for the acts done by Shri WazirChand. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on State of HaryanaVersus Brij Lal Mittal, 1998(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 608 (S.C.) and Anil PuriVersus M/S Makhan Lal Vinod Kumar and others, 2006(3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 939 (P&H). No one has appeared on behalf of the respondent. I have thoughtfully considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the judgments relied uponby him. No one has appeared on behalf of the respondent. I have thoughtfully considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the judgments relied uponby him. In my opinion, this matter is squarely covered by the judgmentdated 9.10.2002 of this Court in Criminal Revision No.736 of 1992 .... whereby the order of the appellate Court was set aside in similarcircumstances. In judgment dated 9.10.1992, it was observed as under:- “When a partner of partnership firm is not the incharge and isnot responsible to the conduct of business of partnership firm,then such partner cannot be held responsible for the act of otherpartners. In view of the above discussion, it is established that thepetitioners were not responsible for the conduct of the businessof the firm nor they had verified the false return. The return hasbeen filed by Wazir Chand deceased, therefore, the prosecutionof the present petitioners will be illegal.” In the present case, the complaint does not disclose any suchaverments qua the petitioners. Accordingly, the instant revision petition is accepted and orderdated 1.10.1992 is set aside on the parity of the reasoning given in judgmentdated 9.10.2002 rendered in Criminal Revision No.736 of 1992. July 23,2009“SCM” ( Mahesh Grover ) Judge