TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court dismisses petition to quash criminal proceedings; no need to wait for assessment completion</h1> <h3>P. Jayappan Versus SK. Perumal, First Income-Tax Officer, Tuticorn</h3> The court dismissed the petition seeking to quash criminal proceedings under sections 193 and 196 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 276(1) and 277 of ... Offences And Prosecution Issues:1. Quashing of criminal proceedings under sections 193 and 196 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 276(1) and 277 of the Income Tax Act.2. Prematurity of prosecution before completion of reassessment proceedings.3. Interpretation of provisions under sections 276C, 277, and 279(1A) of the Income Tax Act.4. Validity of launching criminal prosecution before completion of assessment proceedings.5. Comparison with relevant case law such as Telu Ram Raunqi v. ITO and Uttam Chand v. ITO.Analysis:The petitioner filed a petition under s. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash the criminal proceedings against him under sections 193 and 196 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 276(1) and 277 of the Income Tax Act. The prosecution was initiated by the First Income-tax Officer based on discrepancies found during a search at the petitioner's residence, revealing false information in the income tax return and fabricated account books with the intent to defraud the exchequer. The petitioner argued that the prosecution was premature as reassessment proceedings were not completed before filing criminal charges. However, the respondent contended that there is no legal prohibition against launching criminal prosecution before the conclusion of assessment proceedings.The petitioner relied on section 279(1A) of the Income Tax Act, claiming that the prosecution should have waited until the completion of assessment proceedings to allow for the reduction or waiver of penalties under s. 273A. The court noted that s. 279(2) allows for the Commissioner to compound offenses before or after the institution of criminal proceedings, indicating that there is no requirement to wait for the completion of assessment proceedings before initiating prosecution. The court cited the High Court of Punjab and Haryana's decision in Telu Ram Raunqi v. ITO, emphasizing that mere expectancies of reduced penalties do not justify halting criminal proceedings.The court also discussed the Supreme Court's ruling in Uttam Chand v. ITO, where it was held that the findings of the Appellate Tribunal regarding the genuineness of a partnership firm were binding in criminal prosecution proceedings. However, the court clarified that the issue of launching prosecution before the completion of assessment proceedings was not addressed in that case. Ultimately, the court dismissed the petition, affirming that the prosecution was not premature, and there was no legal impediment to initiating criminal proceedings before the conclusion of assessment proceedings.In conclusion, the court upheld the validity of launching criminal prosecution under the Income Tax Act before the completion of assessment proceedings, rejecting the petitioner's argument of prematurity based on the expectation of penalty reduction or waiver. The judgment emphasized that legal provisions do not mandate waiting for assessment proceedings to conclude before initiating criminal charges, citing relevant case law to support this interpretation.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
