2014 (6) TMI 406 - HC - Income Tax

Criminal prosecution complaint u/s 276 C and Section 277 read with Section 278-B of the Act Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act - Whether it is not an abuse of the process of the law to prosecute an assessee for concealment of income when Adjudicatory Authority of the tax Department has itself held that return of the assessee was voluntary return filed in good faith and before the detection of any concealment by the AO Held that - Criminal prosecution had been launched against the petitioners on January 29, 1993 on the ground that they had concealed their income for the assessment year 1988-89 - once authorities under the Act return a finding that there is no concealment of income, the prosecution is not sustainable on the allegation of concealment of income the Tribunal held that there is no concealment and the return filed by the assessee was voluntary, filed in good faith and before the detection of any concealment - the penalty imposed u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Act has been set aside - once the Tribunal of a Department holds that there is no concealment of income on part of the accused and the penalty is deleted, the very basis of the complaint is knocked down and continuation of complaint will be an abuse of the process of the Court thus, the criminal complaint and the proceedings are set aside Decided in favour of Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Revisional jurisdiction to question the legality of an order passed by the Sessions Judge.
2. Dismissal of complaint under Sections 276C and 277 read with Section 278B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. Imposition of penalty by the Assessing Officer and confirmation by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
4. Filing of a reference application by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
5. Exoneration of the petitioners by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
6. Consideration of the Tribunal's decision in the criminal prosecution against the petitioners.
7. Legal principles regarding concealment of income and prosecution under the Income Tax Act.

Analysis:
1. The petitioners invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court to challenge the order passed by the Sessions Judge, which set aside the trial Court's dismissal of the complaint under Sections 276C and 277 read with Section 278B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The revisional Court observed that the petitioners attempted to evade income tax, leading to the need for further explanation during the trial.

2. The Assessing Officer imposed a penalty on the petitioners despite accepting their surrender of additional income. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed this penalty, leading to the filing of a complaint under Sections 276C and 277 read with Section 278B of the Act. The trial Court initially dismissed the complaint, but the Sessions Judge allowed the revision petition by the Income Tax Officer, setting aside the trial Court's order.

3. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, accepted the petitioners' appeal, emphasizing that the return was voluntary and filed in good faith without concealment of income. The Tribunal's decision exonerating the petitioners from concealment allegations was crucial in the subsequent legal proceedings.

4. The legal principles regarding concealment of income and prosecution under the Income Tax Act were extensively discussed. The judgment highlighted the importance of Adjudicatory Authority findings in determining the sustainability of prosecution. Citing previous Supreme Court judgments, the Court emphasized that if authorities find no concealment of income, prosecution based on such allegations is not sustainable.

5. Ultimately, the High Court upheld the order of the trial Court, setting aside the revisional Court's decision. The criminal complaint and all proceedings against the petitioners were quashed based on the Tribunal's exoneration of the petitioners from concealment charges. The Court emphasized that continuing criminal proceedings without a basis would be an abuse of the legal process and violate constitutional rights.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the legal issues involved and the Court's reasoning in resolving the matter.