Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Appeal No.588 of 2008 ====================================================== Hindustan Live Stock Agency, 1/158, Gali Bagichiwali, Punja Sharif, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi-110 006, through its partner Rajeev Malik. .... .... Assessee/Appellant/Respondent/Appellant. Versus Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Central Revenue Building, Patna-800 001. .... .... Assessing Officer/Respondent/Appellant/Respondent. ====================================================== with Miscellaneous Appeal No.589 of 2008 ====================================================== Hindustan Live Stock Agency, 1/158, Gali Bagichiwali, Punja Sharif, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi-110 006, through its partner Rajeev Malik. .... .... Assessee/Appellant/Respondent/Appellant. Versus Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Central Revenue Building, Patna-800 001. .... .... Assessing Officer/Respondent/Appellant/Respondent. ====================================================== with Miscellaneous Appeal No.586 of 2008 ====================================================== Hindustan Live Stock Agency, 1/158, Gali Bagichiwali, Punja Sharif, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi-110 006, through its partner Rajeev Malik. .... .... Assessee/Appellant/Respondent/Appellant. Versus Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Central Revenue Building, Patna-800 001. .... .... Assessing Officer/Respondent/Appellant/Respondent. ====================================================== with Miscellaneous Appeal No.585 of 2008 ====================================================== Hindustan Live Stock Agency, 1/158, Gali Bagichiwali, Punja Sharif, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi-110 006, through its partner Rajeev Malik. .... .... Assessee/Appellant/Respondent/Appellant. Versus Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Central Revenue Building, Patna-800 001. .... .... Assessing Officer/Respondent/Appellant/Respondent. ====================================================== Appearance : (In MA No.588 of 2008) For the Appellant/s : Mr. Dr. Krishna Nandan Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Dr.Kamal Deo Sharma, Advocate. Mr. Shivjee Singh, Advocate. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Harshwardhan Prasad, Advocate. Mr. Archana Sinha, Adv. 2 (In MA No.589 of 2008) For the Appellant/s : Mr. Dr. Krishna Nandan Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Dr.Kamal Deo Sharma, Advocate. Mr. Shivjee Singh, Advocate. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Harshwardhan Prasad, Advocate. Mr. Archana Sinha, Adv. (In MA No.586 of 2008) For the Appellant/s : Mr. Dr. Krishna Nandan Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Dr.Kamal Deo Sharma, Advocate. Mr. Shivjee Singh, Advocate. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Harshwardhan Prasad, Advocate. Mr. Archana Sinha, Adv. (In MA No.585 of 2008) For the Appellant/s : Mr. Dr. Krishna Nandan Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Dr.Kamal Deo Sharma, Advocate. Mr. Shivjee Singh, Advocate. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Harshwardhan Prasad, Advocate. Mr. Archana Sinha, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH And HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI C.A.V. ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI) 2. 25-04-2012 All the four appeals, i.e, M.A. No.585 of 2008, M.A. No.586 of 2008, M.A. No.588 of 2008, M.A. No.589 of 2008 are in between the same party and involve common questions of facts and law, therefore with the consent of the parties there has been analogous hearing and these are being disposed of by common order. 2. The brief facts of the case are independently dealt with. (A) M.A. No.585 of 2008 and M.A. No.589 of 2008. Petitioner happens to be an assessee. For the assessment year 1992-93 he had furnished return / statement which was accepted by the Department and the matter was concluded thereafter. Subsequently, petitioner and its partner emerged as an accused in 3 Fodder Scam bearing case no.RC-45(A)/96-PAT dated 19.04.1996 and on the basis thereof, scope of reassessment was found and for that he was noticed under [STATUTE] . and in compliance thereof submitted return under Section 147 before Assessing Officer which was the copy of earlier return so submitted in compliance of Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. The aforesaid return was rejected by the Assessing Officer who assessed the total (100%) of receipts as income amounting to Rs.35,83,173/-, and accordingly raised a demand of Rs.10,95,611/-. Being aggrieved, an appeal was preferred before the Commissioner of Income Tax which was allowed to the extent of considering the income as 40% of the receipt from Animal Husbandry Department, Government of Bihar. Interest charged under Section 234A, 234B of the Income-tax Act was to be only upon income returned by the appellant. The aforesaid order led to filing of appeal before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal by the appellant / assessee as well as Department / Revenue. The appeal filed on behalf of appellant / assessee was rejected while appeal filed on behalf of Department / Revenue was allowed. Against the aforesaid order miscellaneous appeal was filed before the High Court which was rejected summarily. Simultaneously, appellant / assessee had also filed petition under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act for rectification/ modification of the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on the point of non- consideration of limitation petition. Meanwhile, against the rejection of miscellaneous appeal by the High Court, appellant / assessee 4 preferred S.L.P. before the Hon’ble Apex Court which was dismissed in the background of pendency of petition filed under Section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal with a liberty to file an appeal before the High Court on merit as well as limitation in case petitioner / assessee gets an adverse order from Income Tax Appellate Tribunal where the matter over limitation was being reconsidered. After rejection of the prayer of the petitioner on the point of limitation, instant appeal has been filed.

Applicable IPC Section: 148

Statute Text:
Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code. Rioting armed with deadly Weapon. Whoever is guilty of rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon or with anything which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.