9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (9) TMI 95X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fter referred to as " the Act "), has been affirmed. The admitted facts are that Shri Inderjit Chopra, the respondent herein, carrying on his business under the name and style of Marshal Foundry and Engineering Works at Faridabad, is an assessee under the 693 Act. For the assessment year 1980-81, he filed the return of his income on July 31, 1981, showing an income of Rs. 8,092 which was revised on March 19, 1983, showing a loss of Rs. 4,252. The original return along with its annexures and the revised return along with the annexures were signed and verified by the said respondent on July 30, 1981, and March 4, 1983, respectively. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was found that certain cash credits were introduced in the na ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax, penalty and interest chargeable/imposable under the Act on the aforesaid amount of Rs. 34,000 which was added as his income from undisclosed sources. The respondent was summoned and pre-charge evidence was recorded. On September 11, 1991, the respondent moved an application challenging the maintainability of the complaint in view of the order dated May 10, 1991, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (referred to above). The Chief Judicial Magistrate, while placing reliance upon a judgment of this court in Kanshi Rant Wadhwa v. ITO [1984] 145 ITR 109, accepted the application, dismissed the complaint and discharged the respondent by order dated February 1, 1992, (annexure P-2). The revision filed by the petitioner against the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ITO [1993] 200 ITR 79 (HP), Madura Chit and Investments Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO [1994] 208 ITR 228 (Mad), Vanaja Textiles Ltd. v. IAC of I. T. [1994] 208 ITR 602 (Ker) and CIT (Deputy) v. Modern Motor Works [1996] 220 ITR 415 (P H). On the other hand, Shri Hemant Kumar, advocate, learned counsel for the respondent, has argued that once the highest appellate authority under the Act has concluded that there was no concealment on the part of the respondent and quashed the penalty, the very foundation of the complaint stands vitiated and the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge were justified in dismissing the complaint as well as the revision. The learned counsel has placed reliance upon P. Jayappan's case [1984] 149 ITR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e High Court of Madras for quashing the criminal proceedings on the ground that the prosecution was premature, since the reassessment proceedings had been initiated and not completed. Having failed before the High Court, the petitioner approached the apex court seeking leave to appeal in all those four cases. In these circumstances, their Lordships, while dismissing the petition, observed as under : " That the pendency of the reassessment proceedings could not act as a bar to the institution of criminal prosecution for the offences punishable under section 276C or section 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Nor could the institution of the criminal proceedings, in the circumstances, amount to an abuse of the process of the court. . . A mere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act. In another decision rendered in Uttam Chand v. ITO [1982] 133 ITR 909 (SC), the apex court has pronounced that if there is no case for sustenance of penalty, it equally is not a case for criminal prosecution. In a recent judgment delivered in G. L. Didwania's case [1997] 224 ITR 687 (SC), the apex court knocked down the criminal proceedings launched against the assessee when the finding of the assessing authority that the assessee had intentionally concealed his income had been set aside. The views expressed earlier in Uttam Chand's [1982] 133 ITR 909 (SC), and P. Jayappan's case [1984] 149 ITR 696 (SC) were reaffirmed. While concluding, in paragraph 4 of the judgment, their Lordships observed as under : " In the instant case, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee. The penalty is accordingly quashed. In the result, the appeal is allowed." It may also be stated that the petitioner had filed an application under section 256(1) of the Act which was also rejected and the petitioner did not care to take any steps to approach the High Court under section 256(2) of the Act. The gravamen of the charge in the complaint filed against the respondent is the concealment of income and/or furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the respondent for the assessment year 1980-81 and on the same facts penalty orders were passed. Admittedly, penalty orders have been quashed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal with a finding that there is no such concealment of income by the respondent. Once the basis of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
