Income-tax prosecution may proceed despite remanded assessment, and no separate pre-prosecution notice is required.

Criminal prosecution for concealment of stock and filing a false return under the Income-tax Act can proceed independently of pending or remanded assessment proceedings. A remand of the assessment order does not, by itself, negate a prima facie complaint or bar the criminal court from examining the evidence on its own. The disputed character of the seized stock statement remains a matter for trial. The penal provisions also do not require a separate pre-prosecution notice unless the statute expressly so provides; prior opportunity in the reassessment process was sufficient. Accordingly, neither ground prevented the complaint from proceeding.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether pending or remanded assessment proceedings and the setting aside of the assessment order by the appellate authority barred prosecution for concealment and false return under the Income-tax Act; (ii) Whether the absence of a separate notice before launching prosecution vitiated the criminal proceedings.

Issue (i): Whether pending or remanded assessment proceedings and the setting aside of the assessment order by the appellate authority barred prosecution for concealment and false return under the Income-tax Act.

Analysis: The complaint disclosed a prima facie case of suppression of stock and understatement of income. The appellate order did not record a finding that the return was correct or that there was no concealment, but merely remanded the assessment for fresh consideration and opportunity. Criminal prosecution under the penal provisions of the Income-tax Act is not dependent on the finality of assessment proceedings, and the criminal court must decide the complaint independently on the evidence before it. Any disputed question as to whether the seized stock statement was only a rough statement was held to be a matter for trial.

Conclusion: The remand of assessment proceedings did not bar the prosecution, and the objection on this ground failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the absence of a separate notice before launching prosecution vitiated the criminal proceedings.

Analysis: The relevant penal provisions do not contemplate a separate pre-prosecution notice. The petitioners had already been given an opportunity in the reassessment process and had explained their stand before the Income-tax Officer. In the absence of any statutory requirement of notice, and where the assessees were aware that their explanation had not been accepted, the prosecution could not be quashed on this ground.

Conclusion: No separate notice before prosecution was required, and the objection on this ground also failed.

Final Conclusion: The petition raised no sustainable ground to prevent the criminal court from proceeding with the complaint alleging concealment of stock and false return.

Ratio Decidendi: A criminal prosecution for concealment or false return under the Income-tax Act can proceed independently of pending or remanded assessment proceedings, and no separate pre-prosecution notice is required unless the statute expressly provides for one.

---