TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
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 prosecution and criminal proceedings could be sustained after omission of sections 276DD and 276E of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in the absence of any saving clause; and (ii) whether the petitioners, including partners of the firm, could be proceeded against on the facts of the transactions between the sister concerns and whether the proceedings were liable to be quashed.
Issue (i): Whether prosecution and criminal proceedings could be sustained after omission of sections 276DD and 276E of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in the absence of any saving clause.
Analysis: The penal provisions relied upon for launching prosecution had been omitted with effect from 1 April 1989. The proceedings for prosecution were initiated later, and the judgment treated the omission as having the effect that the deleted provisions could not be used as the foundation for prosecution in the absence of any saving clause preserving past liability. Reliance was placed on the principle that omission of a penal provision without saving legislation prevents continuation or initiation of prosecution under that provision for the later period.
Conclusion: The prosecution on the basis of sections 276DD and 276E could not be sustained and was held untenable.
Issue (ii): Whether the petitioners, including partners of the firm, could be proceeded against on the facts of the transactions between the sister concerns and whether the proceedings were liable to be quashed.
Analysis: The transactions between the two concerns were found to be genuine accounting adjustments made to meet temporary business requirements and not loans or deposits attracting the mischief of section 269SS of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessment records had earlier accepted the explanation and the departmental proposal to proceed had been dropped. The order also recorded that the petition could be entertained by the Bench, as territorial jurisdiction had already been decided in the petitioners' favour in an earlier order forming part of the present decision.
Conclusion: The proceedings were liable to be quashed, and the petitioners were not to be prosecuted on the facts alleged.
Final Conclusion: The criminal notices, summons, and prosecution proceedings were quashed, and the connected criminal cases were directed not to continue against the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a penal provision has been omitted without a saving clause, prosecution under that provision cannot be initiated or continued thereafter; additionally, genuine inter-firm accounting adjustments not amounting to loans or deposits do not attract the penal consequences invoked on these facts.
TaxTMI 
