1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- 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.
<h1>Court quashes Income-tax Act charges, citing appellate authority's findings. Criminal proceeding deemed an abuse of court process.</h1> The High Court PATNA allowed the application, quashing Complaint Case No. 287 of 1992 and the order taking cognizance under sections 276C and 277 of the ... Total Income, Wilful Attempt To Evade Tax Issues:1. Quashing of the complaint in Complaint Case No. 287 of 19922. Order taking cognizance under sections 276C and 277 of the Income-tax Act, 19613. Criminal proceedings against the petitionersAnalysis:The petitioners sought to quash a complaint in Complaint Case No. 287 of 1992 and the order taking cognizance under sections 276C and 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The complaint alleged that petitioner No. 1, a partnership firm, engaged in leasing equipment and made a disallowed commission payment, leading to penalty proceedings. The Special Court took cognizance of the offence under sections 276C and 277. The petitioners contended that the appeal allowed by the appellate court nullified the basis of the complaint, as the reassessment order accepted their claim. The Department argued that criminal proceedings could continue despite the appellate authority's decision. The court considered precedent cases like K. T. M. S. Mohammed v. Union of India and Uttam Chand v. ITO, emphasizing that findings favoring the assessee can nullify criminal liability. The court also referred to Banwarilal Satyanarain v. State of Bihar, where the prosecution was quashed due to a favorable assessment order. The court held that continuing the criminal proceeding would be an abuse of the court's process, given the nullification of the facts constituting the offence by the appellate authority.The court highlighted that the appellate order exonerated the petitioner-firm and allowed their claim on reassessment. Citing legal precedents, the court emphasized that findings favoring the assessee can impact criminal liability. The court referred to a case where the prosecution was quashed due to a favorable assessment order, drawing parallels to the present situation. The court distinguished a Division Bench decision relied upon by the Department, emphasizing the inapplicability of the decision to the current case under the Income-tax Act. Ultimately, the court concluded that allowing the criminal proceeding to continue would amount to an abuse of the court's process.In conclusion, the court allowed the application, quashing Complaint Case No. 287 of 1992 and the order taking cognizance. The court ruled that the criminal proceeding against the petitioners should not continue, considering the nullification of the facts constituting the offence by the appellate authority. The judgment was delivered by Judge S. K. Chattopadhyaya of the High Court PATNA, citing relevant legal principles and precedents to support the decision.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
