https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11603 Pendency of reassessment proceedings did not by itself justify quashing the prosecution or discharge of the accused for offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Income-tax Act. The Madras HC noted that the accused could raise his objections at the stage of framing of charges, and that the discharge petition was premature. It held that the original assessment continued to supply the basis for criminal action, and the mere absence of a reassessment order within two years did not amount to acceptance of the taxpayer's explanation or bar continuation of the prosecution. The challenge to the prosecution was rejected and discharge was held not maintainable. en-us Wed, 20 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 31 Jan 2010 17:04:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11603 Pendency of reassessment proceedings did not by itself justify quashing the prosecution or discharge of the accused for offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Income-tax Act. The Madras HC noted that the accused could raise his objections at the stage of framing of charges, and that the discharge petition was premature. It held that the original assessment continued to supply the basis for criminal action, and the mere absence of a reassessment order within two years did not amount to acceptance of the taxpayer's explanation or bar continuation of the prosecution. The challenge to the prosecution was rejected and discharge was held not maintainable. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 20 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11603