(1.) LEAVE to amend.
(2.) THE prosecution is launched against these applicants under ss. 276C(1)(i), 277 and 278B of the IT Act, 1961. This is for wilful evasion of tax and making false statements in the verification knowingly. This was done as a director of the company and by the company. In Crl. Appln. No. 610 of 1999, prosecution is also launched under S. 35B of the WT Act, 1957, in addition.
(3.) I find that at least four learned single Judges of this Court have taken the view that the criminal proceedings should be stayed, i.e., Criminal Revisional Appln. No. 251 of 1985, with Crl. Revisional Applin. No. 252 of 1985, dt. 27th June, 1986, judgment reported in Mohanlal Mahabir Prasad (Firm) vs. CIT (1991) Mh LJ 984 (Bom) and Vinodkumar Bajranglal Choudhary vs. Asstt. CIT (1994) Tax LR 488 (Bom) : (1996) Crl. LJ 449. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also cited the judgment reported in G.L. Didwania vs. ITO (1997) 140 CTR (SC) 273 : (1997) 224 ITR 687 (SC) : TC S48.3888. But it relates to quashing of the criminal proceedings in view of the Tribunal taking the view that there was no false statement made regarding the income of the assessee and there was no escaped assessment.