Y JAYALAKSHMI Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed for stay of all further proceedings in E. O. C. C. No. 115 of 1986 on the file of the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E. O. 2), Madras, pending disposal of the petition to the CIT for compounding the charges against the petitioner.

(2.) WHEN the matter was taken up for hearing learned standing counsel for the IT Department drew my attention to the decision of this Court reported in Kamala Ganesan vs. ITO, wherein this Court, after relying on the earlier decision of the apex Court, held as follows :"Held, that the questions whether the petitioners were directors or not and whether they were principal officers were questions of fact which the trial Court alone could consider. The High Court could not receive additional evidence in the form of the memorandum and articles of association of the company and give a finding on facts in proceedings under s. 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Merely because a petition for compounding the offences is pending before the IT authorities, the criminal trial could not be stayed. The complaint could not be quashed.".