9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Quashing of complaint under section 276C(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with sections 193/467/471/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Settlement application under section 245C of the Act for assessment years 1980-81, 1981-82, and 1982-83. 3. Immunity from prosecution under the Act or the Indian Penal Code under section 245H of the Act. 4. Dismissal of application by Chief Judicial Magistrate despite Settlement Commissioner's order. 5. Challenge to quashing of proceedings by Department. 6. Interpretation of Settlement Commissioner's order and its impact on criminal proceedings. 7. Comparison of powers under section 245H of the Act and section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 8. Applicability of previous judgments in similar cases. 9. Consideration of settlement and disclosure of income in quashing criminal proceedings. Detailed Analysis: The petitioner, a partnership firm engaged in the sale and purchase of goods, sought the quashing of a complaint under section 276C(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and sections 193/467/471/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The firm had applied for settlement under section 245C of the Act for the assessment years 1980-81, 1981-82, and 1982-83, seeking immunity from prosecution. The Settlement Commissioner accepted the application, finding no concealed income and imposing no penalties. Despite this settlement, the Chief Judicial Magistrate dismissed the application to discharge the petitioners, leading to the present petition for quashing the complaint (paragraphs 1-3). The petitioner argued that the settlement order rendered the criminal complaint baseless, citing a Supreme Court case where a similar complaint was quashed. The Department contested this, claiming the right to prosecute despite the settlement, as no specific immunity order was issued. The Settlement Commissioner's order, accepting the income disclosure, was deemed crucial in determining the validity of the criminal complaint (paragraphs 4-6). The Settlement Commissioner's decision was analyzed to show its impact on the criminal proceedings, emphasizing the importance of full income disclosure to avoid penalties or false accusations. The comparison between powers under section 245H of the Act and section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code was highlighted, supporting the argument for quashing the complaint based on settlement terms. Previous judgments were discussed to differentiate cases where criminal proceedings were quashed and where they were allowed to proceed (paragraphs 7-8). The judgment concluded that the settlement and full income disclosure were pivotal in deciding to quash the criminal proceedings. The absence of pending assessment proceedings and the finality of the settlement order supported the decision to quash the complaint filed more than 13 years prior. The ruling accepted the petition and quashed the complaint dated November 28, 1981, based on the Settlement Commissioner's order and the disclosed income findings (paragraph 9).
|
