INCOME TAX OFFICER Vs. MITTAL B B

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A complaint against the firm, M/s. D.D. Mittal and its partners (accused), was filed by the Income-tax Officer, Barnala, on March 17, 1986, under Section 276C read with Section 277 of the Income-tax Act and Sections 193 and 196 of the Indian Penal Code on the following allegations :

(2.) THE complaint having been filed by an Income-tax Officer in his official capacity, his statement was not recorded and the accused were summoned. On putting in appearance before the court, the accused moved an application on the ground that the penalty imposed on the firm by the Income-tax Officer, Barnala, had been quashed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh, vide its order dated April 29, 1986, and that the accused had not concealed any income and they had not filed any false return. It was also alleged in the application that the Income-tax Officer, Barnala, had already complied with the order of the appellate authority and had issued refund order of the penalty amount imposed by him. This application was contested by the complainant, Income-tax Officer, Barnala, on the ground that though the order of the Income-tax Officer dated October 26, 1982, imposing penalty of Rs. 13,870 has been set aside by the Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh, yet the Revenue was contemplating to file an appeal against that order. THE trial court gave ample time to the complainant to produce any document or any order showing that any appeal had been preferred but, in spite of ample opportunities granted, no such material was placed before the court.

(3.) A perusal of the aforesaid judgments goes to show that the last four authorities are not even remotely relevant to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand and, as such, being inapplicable, need no discussion. All the same, the authority at No. 1, i.e., P. Jayappan's case [1984] 149 ITR 696 (SC) is squarely applicable to the facts of the case of the accused. At page 700 of this judgment, the apex court, while relying upon its previous judgment/decision rendered in Uttam Chand v. ITO [1982] 133 ITR 909, held that "the prosecution once initiated may be quashed in the light of a finding favourable to the assessee recorded by an authority under the Act subsequently in respect of the relevant assessment proceedings but that decision is no authority for the proposition that no proceedings can be initiated at all under Section 276C and Section 277 as long as some proceeding under the Act in which there is a chance of success of the assessee is pending".