KEWAL KRISHAN GUPTA Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner moved the Settlement Commission for the grant of immunity but no decision could be taken thereon by him because of the pendency of he criminal misc. in this Court. For enabling the petitioner to obtain the desired order from the Settlement Commission, criminal misc. may kindly be dismissed as withdrawn. Further proceedings before the learned trial Court may, however, be stayed till the Settlement Commission pronounces upon the petitioner's request aforesaid. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, opposes the request for the grant of stay in view of the observations made in Harbans Singh vs. Union of India (1987) 66 CTR (P&H) 165 : (1988) 171 ITR 23 (P&H). The matter regarding grant of immunity from prosecution, according to him, is not yet pending before the Settlement Commission at this stage.

(2.) IN Ashwini Kumar Vadilal Patel vs. ITO & Anr. (1989) 77 CTR (Guj) 216 : (1989) 178 ITR 385 (Guj), placed in similar situation, Honb'le Mr. Justice D.C. Gheewala of the Gujarat High Court ordered, "Held, that it might be that the Settlement Commission might not ultimately grant immunity to the petitioner and in that case the criminal proceedings would have to be carried to their logical conclusion. But, before the Settlement Commission arrived at its decision, to allow the proceedings before the criminal Court to continue might lead to an anomalous situation.