The Present Application Under Section 482 Cr.p.c. Has Beenfiled By The Applicant With A Prayer To Quash The Entireproceedings Of Case v. M/Ssundarlal Anand Kumar And Another) Under Sections 276C,277, 278 Of I.t. Act, Pending Before The Special Chief Judicialmagistrate, Meerut As Well As Stay The

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4715 of 2020 Applicant :- Anand Kumar And Another Opposite Party :- Union Of India Through I.A.C., Income Tax (Assesment), Meerut Counsel for Applicant :- Ujjawal Satsangi,Shagun K. SaranCounsel for Opposite Party :- S.S.C.(I.T.),Shubham Agrawal Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J. Heard Mr. Ujjawal Satsangi, learned counsel for the applicantsandMr. Shubham Agrawal, learned counsel for the oppositeparty no.2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has beenfiled by the applicant with a prayer to quash the entireproceedings of Case No. 1915/1997 (Union of India vs. M/sSundarlal Anand Kumar and another) under Sections 276C,277, 278 of I.T. Act, pending before the Special Chief JudicialMagistrate, Meerut as well as stay the operation of N.B.W.passed by the court below in the aforesaid case. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants thatthe applicant no.1 and his father, namely, late Sundar Lal,jointly constituted a partnership for conducting business in thename of applicant no.2, M/s Sundar Lal Anand Kumar(hereinafter referred as applicants' firm). The applicants' firm isin the business of wholesale of households goods and is a dealerof products of Hindustan Unilevers, Parley Biscuits, NippoCells etc. On 25.11.1983, the Income Tax Departmentconducted a search under Section 132 of Income Tax Act, 1961and alleged to find a duplicate set of books of account.Thereafter, the applicants' firm filed its annual return for theassessment year 1984-85 and showed income of Rs. 45,610/- on30.08.1984 and the same was duly verified by the oppositeparty no.2. Thereafter, the Assessment Officer preparedassessment of the applicants' firm for the year 1984-85, whereinit was observed by the Assessment Officer that Late Sundar Lalshowed a deposit of Rs. 792/- only, whereas, the creditsappearing in the parallel ledger was Rs. 6,567/-. Therefore, theassessment officer observed that Rs. 65,775/- should beconsidered as unexplained income. It has further been submitted that the aforesaid observations ofthe Assessment Officer was challenged by the applicants' firmbefore the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who afterhearing the parties agreed with the explanation given to the extent of Rs. 61,908/-. In the meantime, the opposite party no.2initiated the criminal proceedings against the applicantsregarding the same allegations and the Special Chief JudicialMagistrate, Allahabad proceeded against the applicants, underSections 276C, 277, 278 of Income Tax Act. Thereafter, againstthe aforesaid criminal proceedings, the applicants approachedbefore this Court by means of Application U/s 482 No. 14756of 1991 and the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide orderdated 16.04.1999, following order was passed:- It has further been submitted that the aforesaid observations ofthe Assessment Officer was challenged by the applicants' firmbefore the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who afterhearing the parties agreed with the explanation given to the extent of Rs. 61,908/-. In the meantime, the opposite party no.2initiated the criminal proceedings against the applicantsregarding the same allegations and the Special Chief JudicialMagistrate, Allahabad proceeded against the applicants, underSections 276C, 277, 278 of Income Tax Act. Thereafter, againstthe aforesaid criminal proceedings, the applicants approachedbefore this Court by means of Application U/s 482 No. 14756of 1991 and the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide orderdated 16.04.1999, following order was passed:- "...........Considering the facts and circumstances of the case,this petition is disposed of finally with the observation that thepetitioner may move application / objection before the court,concerned raising his grievances and the contentions and ifsuch an application is filed, the learned Magistrate maydispose of the same expeditiously by a reasoned order inaccordance with law. Accordingly, it is directed that if theapplication/ objection is filed by the petitioner, within 8 weeksfrom today, the same shall be considered and disposed ofexpeditiously by a reasoned order as indicated above. However,till the disposal of such application / objection the petitionershall not be required to appear in person and shall be permittedto appear through counsel and all the proceedings except whichare necessary for the disposal of that application / objection,shall remain stayed. It will also be open for the learnedMagistrte to see that in case any proceedings are pendingchallenging the orders passed by the Income-Tax Authorityquestions, under any statutory provisions, the trial may not beheld till the conclusion of those proceedings as directed by theHon'ble Supreme Court in the Case of P. Jayapan (supra). It isfurther provided that in case proceedings have been concludedor the cases have been decided under voluntary Disclosure ofIncome Scheme (VDIS) by the Income-Tax Authority, thecomplaint shall be decided in terms of the same. A certified copy of this order shall be given to the learnedcounsel for the parties on payment of usual charges." Pursuant to the aforesaid order, an application was filed by theapplicants before the concerned court below but detailsregarding whether any penalty under Section 271(1)(c) relevantto assessment year 1983-84 in the case of Anand Kumar existsas validly levied was not mentioned. The other information asto whether the Special C.J.M.(Economic Offences), Meerut wasnot informed that no valid penalty under Section 271(1)(c) inthe case of Anand Kumar for assessment year 1983-84 exists ason date has also not been mentioned in the application. It has further been submitted that regarding penalty as per the records, no such penalty existed against the applicants' firm andthere were no records available in the office of the Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax, Meerut to show that any suchpenalty exists against the applicants' firm as is evident frompage 103 of the application. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 opposed thecontentions made by the learned counsel for the applicants andsubmitted that the report regarding penalty for the assessmentyear 1983-84, which is annexed at page 103 is with respect tothe Proprietor, Anand Kumar Jain and not with respect to theapplicants' firm. It has further been submitted that in pursuanceof the order dated 16.04.1999, a detailed application was movedby the applicants but various ground regarding whether anypenalty existed against the applicants' firm have not been dealtwith. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 opposed thecontentions made by the learned counsel for the applicants andsubmitted that the report regarding penalty for the assessmentyear 1983-84, which is annexed at page 103 is with respect tothe Proprietor, Anand Kumar Jain and not with respect to theapplicants' firm. It has further been submitted that in pursuanceof the order dated 16.04.1999, a detailed application was movedby the applicants but various ground regarding whether anypenalty existed against the applicants' firm have not been dealtwith. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case andhaving considered the submissions made by the learned counselfor the parties, it is directed that the applicant may file a properapplication before the concerned Magistrate, who will afterconsidering all the facts and circumstances of the case, pass areasoned order, expeditiously, preferably within a period of twomonths from today, if there is no other legal impediment. For a period of two months from today or till the disposal of theapplicants' application, whichever is earlier, no coercive actionshall be taken against the applicants. With the above observations, the application stands disposedof. Order Date :- 10.2.2020JK Yadav