HC held that once ITAT, as final fact-finding authority, has deleted penalty u/s 271AAB on merits by holding that there was neither concealment of income nor satisfaction of conditions for penalty, the factual foundation for prosecution u/s 276C(1)(i) disappears. Since both penalty and prosecution were based on identical allegations of concealment and willful attempt to evade tax arising from the same search, the criminal case could not be sustained. Pendency of the revenue's appeal u/s 260A, in absence of any stay on the ITAT order, did not bar exercise of inherent jurisdiction. HC, invoking Section 482 CrPC, quashed the prosecution as abuse of process.
HC held that once ITAT, as final fact-finding authority, has deleted penalty u/s 271AAB on merits by holding that there was neither concealment of income nor satisfaction of conditions for penalty, the factual foundation for prosecution u/s 276C(1)(i) disappears. Since both penalty and prosecution were based on identical allegations of concealment and willful attempt to evade tax arising from the same search, the criminal case could not be sustained. Pendency of the revenue's appeal u/s 260A, in absence of any stay on the ITAT order, did not bar exercise of inherent jurisdiction. HC, invoking Section 482 CrPC, quashed the prosecution as abuse of process.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
