2002 (10) TMI 19 - HC - Income Tax

The present petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed by the petitioners for quashing of the complaint dated December 12, 1989, filed under sections 276C(1), 277 read with section 278B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and section 193 of the Indian Penal Code - complaint filed under sections 276C(1), 277 read with section 278B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and section 193 of the Indian Penal Code is liable to be quashed

Summary

Issues:
1. Quashing of complaint under sections 276C(1), 277 read with section 278B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and section 193 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Appeal against the order imposing penalty.
3. Application under section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for dropping proceedings.
4. Contention regarding continuation of criminal proceedings post quashing of penalty order by the Tribunal.

Analysis:
1. The petitioners filed a petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking the quashing of a complaint dated December 12, 1989, filed against them under various sections of the Income-tax Act and the Indian Penal Code. The complaint alleged discrepancies in the assessment leading to the imposition of a penalty. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal later allowed the appeal filed by the assessees, setting aside the penalty order and finding no concealment by the assessees. The Tribunal's findings led to the quashing of the penalty order, and subsequently, the High Court quashed the complaint based on the Tribunal's decision, citing that there was no concealment by the assessees as per the Tribunal's firm findings.

2. The petitioners had appealed against the order imposing the penalty, which was dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). However, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal allowed the second appeal filed by the assessees, leading to the quashing of the penalty order. The Tribunal's decision played a crucial role in the subsequent quashing of the complaint against the petitioners, emphasizing that there was no concealment by the assessees based on the Tribunal's findings.

3. An application was filed under section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioners before the trial magistrate, seeking to drop the proceedings following the quashing of the penalty order by the Tribunal. The trial magistrate dismissed the application, relying on previous judgments. However, the High Court, considering the Tribunal's findings and the absence of concealment by the assessees, ultimately quashed the complaint against the petitioners.

4. The issue of whether criminal proceedings could continue post the quashing of the penalty order by the Tribunal was a point of contention. The respondent argued that despite the penalty order being set aside, criminal proceedings could still proceed independently. However, the High Court, following the precedent set in G.L. Didwania's case, emphasized that if the penalty order was quashed based on the finding of no concealment, then the criminal proceedings could not be sustained. The High Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, quashing the complaint and the penalty order based on the Tribunal's findings and the absence of concealment by the assessees.