Independent tax prosecution survives pending assessment proceedings because criminal liability is judged on its own evidence and standard of proof.

Pendency of assessment, appeal or reference proceedings under the Income-tax Act does not by itself bar prosecution for offences under sections 276C and 277. Tax proceedings and criminal prosecution are independent, and the criminal court must determine the offence on its own evidence under the higher criminal standard of proof, even though findings in tax proceedings may be relevant. An expected success in appeal or reference is not a ground to quash or stop the prosecution under section 482 CrPC, and relevant tax orders may be considered without being ative of the criminal case.

---

---

Issues: Whether criminal prosecution under sections 276C and 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be quashed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 merely because assessment, appeal, or reference proceedings under the Income-tax Act were pending.

Analysis: Pendency of tax proceedings does not bar institution or continuance of prosecution for offences under the Income-tax Act. Civil or assessment findings may be relevant to the criminal case, but the criminal court must reach its own independent conclusion on the ingredients of the offence. The standards of proof are different, namely preponderance of probabilities in tax proceedings and proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal proceedings. Mere expectation of success in appeal or reference is not a ground to stop or quash prosecution, though the criminal court may give due regard to any relevant order passed in the tax proceedings.

Conclusion: The request to quash the prosecution was rejected; the criminal proceedings were held maintainable notwithstanding the pending tax proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: Pending proceedings under the Income-tax Act do not, by themselves, preclude or invalidate prosecution for income-tax offences, because tax proceedings and criminal prosecution are independent and governed by different standards of proof.

---