2003 (1) TMI 74 - HC - Income Tax

Offences and Prosecution - order for the stay of proceeding under sections 276C and 277 - it will simply appear that the pendency of assessment proceeding will not be a bar to initiation of a proceeding under sections 276C and 277 of the Act. In the present case the criminal proceedings have already been instituted and the question before the court is whether under the facts and circumstances of this case, the order for the stay of any such proceeding can be passed or not. Therefore, the question of not instituting any such proceeding is not under consideration. For the present the prayer is only for the stay. Held that stay of proceeding under sections 276C and 277 of the Act can be passed

Summary

Issues Involved
1. Prayer for stay of criminal proceedings.
2. Allegations of non-filing of income tax returns and non-compliance with statutory notices.
3. Allegations of fraudulent withdrawals and misappropriation of funds.
4. Pendency of appeals before appellate authorities.
5. Relevance of Supreme Court decisions on stay of criminal proceedings.
6. Compliance with Section 279(1) of the Income-tax Act.
7. Impact of pending penalty appeals on criminal proceedings.

Detailed Analysis

1. Prayer for Stay of Criminal Proceedings
The petitioner sought an interim stay of criminal proceedings in five different complaint cases where he was accused of offenses under Section 276C of the Income-tax Act. The court decided to address this specific prayer for stay without disposing of the criminal miscellaneous cases.

2. Allegations of Non-Filing of Income Tax Returns and Non-Compliance with Statutory Notices
The complaints alleged that the petitioner failed to file income tax returns for the financial years from 1991-92 to 1995-96 and did not comply with notices issued under Sections 142(1) and 148 of the Act.

3. Allegations of Fraudulent Withdrawals and Misappropriation of Funds
The petitioner, an official in the Animal Husbandry Department, was accused of making fraudulent withdrawals using fake allotment letters and false certificates, leading to a misappropriation of Rs. 2,11,73,760 for the assessment year 1992-93. These allegations were consistent across all complaint cases.

4. Pendency of Appeals Before Appellate Authorities
The petitioner contended that appeals against the assessment and penalty orders were pending before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-II, Patna, and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner argued that the criminal proceedings should be stayed until these appeals were adjudicated, citing the case of CIT v. Bhupen Champak Lal Dalal [2001] 248 ITR 830 (SC).

5. Relevance of Supreme Court Decisions on Stay of Criminal Proceedings
The court considered the Supreme Court's observation in CIT v. Bhupen Champak Lal Dalal, which stated that while criminal proceedings and proceedings under the Act are independent, it is prudent to stay criminal proceedings if the outcome of appellate proceedings could influence them. The Supreme Court had upheld interim stays in such scenarios to avoid conflicting decisions.

6. Compliance with Section 279(1) of the Income-tax Act
The petitioner argued that the criminal proceedings lacked the previous sanction of the Commissioner or appropriate authority as required under Section 279(1) of the Act. The court noted that no evidence of such sanction was presented in the complaint petitions.

7. Impact of Pending Penalty Appeals on Criminal Proceedings
The court also considered Section 279(1A) of the Act, which prohibits criminal proceedings for offenses under Section 276C if the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) is reduced or waived. The court noted that appeals against the penalty were pending, and thus, the provisions of Section 279(1A) were relevant.

Conclusion
Based on the detailed analysis, the court found merit in the petitioner's request for an interim stay of the criminal proceedings. The court granted an interim stay of the proceedings in Complaint Case Nos. 88(C) of 2002, 89(C) of 2002, 90(C) of 2002, 91(C) of 2002, and 92(C) of 2002 pending before the Special Judge, Economic Offences, Patna, until further orders.