9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (4) TMI 44X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r this Act, he shall, without prejudice to any penalty that may be imposable on him under any other provision of this Act, be punishable, (i) in a case where the amount sought to be evaded exceeds one hundred thousand rupees, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to seven years and with fine; (ii) in any other case, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three months but which may extend to three years and with fine. (2) If a person wilfully attempts in any manner whatsoever to evade the payment of any tax, penalty or interest under this Act, he shall, without prejudice to any penalty that may be imposable on him under any other provision of this Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d rupees, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to seven years and with fine; (ii) in any other case, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three months but which may extend to three years and with fine." The kingpin of the arguments of the learned counsel for the applicant is that all the omissions or commissions pointed out by the Income-tax authorities which are the bedrock of the prosecution, have been washed away by the appellate judgment of the Commissioner of Income-tax and now there is no existing omission or commission which could have been the base of either false statement or evasion of tax. In support of the above, the learned counsel h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relevant for the purposes are as under (at page 697-headnote): " The criminal court no doubt has to give due regard to the result of any proceedings under the Income-tax Act having a bearing on the question in issue and in an appropriate case it may drop the proceedings in the light of an order passed under the Act. It does not, however, mean that the result of a proceeding under the Act would be binding on the criminal court. The criminal court has to judge the case independently on the evidence placed before it. Section 279(1A) does not provide that the mere fact that there is possibility of the Commissioner passing an order waiving or reducing the penalty imposed or imposable on the accused under section 271(1)(c), prosecution for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , humiliation, torture to a citizen without there being any foundation, base or bedrock. In the instant case, it is common ground that unless the Appellate Tribunal takes a view different from the one which has been taken by the Commissioner vide order dated March 26, 1985, omissions and commissions pointed out by the prosecution on the basis of which evasion is alleged or false statement is attributed to the petitioner, would normally subject to the other circumstances, order or evidence, become non-existent. At the moment, the judgment of the Commissioner, dated March 26, 1985, is in existence as prima facie valid protective umbrella to the assessee. That being so, it would certainly be abuse of process of the court and may even app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
