TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the complaint and the order taking cognizance for offences under the Income-tax Act were liable to be quashed because the assessee had filed an application before the Settlement Commission under section 245C. (ii) Whether the criminal prosecution should be stayed until disposal of the settlement application by the Settlement Commission.
Issue (i): Whether the complaint and the order taking cognizance for offences under the Income-tax Act were liable to be quashed because the assessee had filed an application before the Settlement Commission under section 245C.
Analysis: The statutory scheme of Chapter XIX-A shows that filing of a settlement application does not by itself oust the jurisdiction of income-tax authorities. Exclusive jurisdiction under section 245F(2) arises only after the application is allowed to be proceeded with under section 245D(1). The sanction for prosecution under section 279(1) was granted and the complaint filed before any such order was passed. Section 245F(4) also preserves the operation of other provisions of the Act in respect of matters not before the Settlement Commission. The sanction and complaint were therefore not without jurisdiction merely because a settlement application was pending.
Conclusion: The complaint and the cognizance order were not liable to be quashed on this ground and the contention was rejected.
Issue (ii): Whether the criminal prosecution should be stayed until disposal of the settlement application by the Settlement Commission.
Analysis: Pendency of a settlement application, even after it is allowed to be proceeded with, does not create a rigid rule requiring stay of criminal proceedings. Criminal prosecution and assessment proceedings are distinct. Section 245H may enable immunity from prosecution in suitable cases, but that possibility does not by itself justify automatic stay. A criminal court may, in an appropriate case, adjourn or postpone the matter under section 309 of the Code if a related decision is imminent, but such relief depends on the facts and is not mandated as a matter of course. The earlier view that prosecution must necessarily be stayed until final settlement was not accepted.
Conclusion: There was no entitlement to a blanket stay of the criminal proceedings and the request for stay was rejected.
Final Conclusion: Mere pendency, or even progression, of settlement proceedings under Chapter XIX-A does not nullify valid prosecution for offences under the Income-tax Act, nor does it compel an automatic stay of the criminal case.
Ratio Decidendi: Settlement proceedings under section 245C do not oust prosecution powers under section 279(1) until the application is allowed to be proceeded with, and pendency of such proceedings does not, by itself, require quashing or staying a valid criminal prosecution.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
