Court upholds prosecution post-appeal despite reduced assessed amounts

The court rejected the petitioner's argument that prosecution was not maintainable post-appellate order due to reduced assessed amounts. Emphasizing that prosecution was based on tax evasion, not specific amounts, the court held that reduction in assessed amounts post-appeal does not negate the need for prosecution if tax evasion is established. The court dismissed the petition, stating that the appellate order does not nullify the authority to file a complaint under penal provisions of the Act, and noted that subsequent events, including the appellate order, would be considered during the trial.

---

---

Issues:
Petition to quash criminal proceedings under sections 276C and 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 based on initial assessment order and subsequent appellate orders.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash criminal proceedings in Complaint Case No. 2 of 1992 under sections 276C and 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The petitioner's return for the assessment year 1989-90 showed a total income of Rs. 19,470, but the assessment revealed undisclosed income leading to additions. The appellate court modified some additions but upheld others. The petitioner argued that the prosecution was not maintainable post-appellate order as the initial sanction was based on the original assessment. The court rejected this argument, emphasizing that the sanction was for tax evasion, not specific amounts. The court cited precedents to support the view that reduction in assessed amounts post-appeal does not negate the need for prosecution if tax evasion is established. The court held that the appellate order does not nullify the authority to file a complaint under penal provisions of the Act. The court dismissed the petition, noting that subsequent events, including the appellate order, would be considered during the trial.

In conclusion, the court rejected the petitioner's argument that the prosecution was not maintainable post-appellate order due to reduced assessed amounts. The court emphasized that the sanction for prosecution was based on tax evasion, not specific amounts, and cited precedents to support the view that reduction in assessed amounts post-appeal does not negate the need for prosecution if tax evasion is established. The court held that the appellate order does not nullify the authority to file a complaint under penal provisions of the Act. The court dismissed the petition, noting that subsequent events, including the appellate order, would be considered during the trial.

---