Penalty proceedings do not bar tax prosecution; partner liability requires material showing responsibility for business conduct.

Penalty proceedings under the Income-tax Act do not bar prosecution for concealment or filing a false return, because the penalty and prosecution regimes operate in different fields. The text also notes that a mere possibility of waiver or reduction of penalty does not prevent criminal proceedings. On partner liability, it explains that vicarious criminal responsibility requires material showing that a partner was in charge of and responsible for the business at the relevant time; on the facts discussed, only the managing partner had such material, so the other partners were discharged. The firm, as the entity through which the return was filed, remained liable to face prosecution.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether levy or possibility of waiver or reduction of penalty under the Income-tax Act barred prosecution for the alleged tax offences. (ii) Whether there was sufficient material to proceed against the partners other than the managing partner, and whether only the firm could be prosecuted.

Issue (i): Whether levy or possibility of waiver or reduction of penalty under the Income-tax Act barred prosecution for the alleged tax offences.

Analysis: The penalty provisions and the prosecution provisions operate in different fields. The existence of a penalty order, or the possibility of waiver or reduction of penalty, does not by itself prevent criminal prosecution for offences relating to concealment and false return. The reasoning that prosecution cannot continue merely because penalty has been levied was therefore unsustainable.

Conclusion: The bar against prosecution was not accepted; the accused could still be proceeded against in law.

Issue (ii): Whether there was sufficient material to proceed against the partners other than the managing partner, and whether only the firm could be prosecuted.

Analysis: Liability of partners depends on basic material showing that they were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business at the relevant time. The record showed that the managing partner alone handled the affairs and filed the return, while there was no adequate material to fasten responsibility on the other partners. The firm, being the entity through which the return was filed and the concealment alleged, remained liable to be prosecuted.

Conclusion: The discharge of the other partners was sustained, but the prosecution against the firm was restored to proceed in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded only to the extent of reviving the prosecution against the firm, while the discharge of the other accused was maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: Penalty proceedings do not preclude prosecution under the Income-tax Act, and vicarious criminal liability of partners requires material showing that they were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business at the relevant time.

---