PANCHU ARUNACHALAM Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is filed to quash the proceedings, namely, C.C. No. 30 of 1992, pending on the file of the Second Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, (E.O. II), Egmore, Madras.

(2.) THE petitioner has been charged with the offences under sections 276C(1) and 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and sections 193, 196 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) THEN coming to the next contention regarding the pendency of the appeal before the Tribunal, the Supreme Court in P. Jayappan v. S. K. Perumal, First ITO [1984] 149 ITR 696 has held 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. The Magistrate has to independently assess the evidence to find out whether there is any fabrication of evidence suppressing the real income for the purpose of reducing the actual income. Therefore, the proceeding before the magistrate is independent and the assessment proceedings are before the assessment authorities. Hence, the pendency of the appeal before the Income-tax authorities will not be a bar to proceeding with the complaint. For these reasons the prayer of the petitioner to quash the proceedings cannot be conceded to.