INCOME TAX OFFICER Vs. GIGGLES (P) LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED Addl. Sessions Judge. The impugned order arose in a revision petition which was filed on behalf of the assessees accused persons. In the application the accused had taken the plea that the Tribunal had deleted the penalty sought to be imposed on the accused under s. 271(1)(c)(iii) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and therefore, the present criminal proceedings under s. 276C(1) r/w s. 278B of the said Act against the accused also did not survive and the complaint ought to be quashed. The learned ACMM, after considering the application moved on behalf of the accused persons and the argument advanced by the parties, rejected the application for discharge on the ground that the IT authorities have preferred an appeal before the High Court and therefore, the penalty proceedings under the provisions of s. 271(1)(c) of the said Act have not attained finality.

(2.) A revision petition before the Addl. Sessions Judge. It is the order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge dt. 5th Sessions Judge, in the impugned order, observing that the fate of the application for discharge was dependent upon the matter to the trial Court for a decision afresh after the appeal filed by the Department was decided by the High Court. It was observed in the impugned order that in case the High Court dismisses the appeal of the Department then the very purpose of proceeding with the case by the trial Court would be an exercise in futility and as such, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge directed that the trial Court should not proceed with the matter till the decision of the High Court in the appeal preferred by the Department.

(3.) MR . Awasthi, who appears on behalf of the IT Department submitted that this order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was not tenable in law inasmuch as penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) and the criminal liability under s. 276C r/w s. 278B of the said Act were independent and the pendency of the proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) could not be taken as a ground to stay the proceedings under s. 276C r/w s. 278B of the said Act. He placed reliance on two decisions, namely, Rinkoo Steels & Ors. vs. K.P. Ganguli, ITO & Anr. (1989) 77 CTR (Del) 95 : (1989) 179 ITR 482 (Del) and R.G. Agarwal & Co. & Ors. vs. Union of India (1994) 119 CTR (MP) 361 : (1994) 210 ITR 617 (MP).