TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (1) TMI 499
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te, Ratlam, for the offence under sections 276C and 278B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against the applicants. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are, the non-applicant-Union of India through the Income-tax Department had filed a criminal complaint against the applicant under section 276C read with section 278B of the Income-tax Act before the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Ratlam in compliance with the order passed by the Assessing Officer against the applicants. Against the order of the Assessing Officer the applicant has filed an appeal before the Income-tax Commissioner, which had been dismissed. Thereafter, the applicant again preferred an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tri- bunal. Then the learned Tribunal has made....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7, 2006, dismissed the revision and again held that the trial court is not having jurisdiction to discharge the accused after framing of the charge as the trial court is not having inherent power to discharge the accused at any stage. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders the applicant has come up before this court by this petition under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. For quashment of the concerning criminal proceedings pending against the applicants before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratlam. 3. Having heard both the counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the criminal proceeding has been lodged by the Income-tax Department in compliance wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... criminal prose- cution against the applicant has been lodged for the offence under sections 276C and 278B of the Income-tax Act 1961, and a specific charge has been framed against the applicants for the aforesaid offence. Admittedly, the aforesaid criminal complaint had been filed by the Income-tax Department against the applicants on the basis of the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer and that order is found to be illegal by this High Court in Income-tax Reference Case No. 24 of 1997 by the order dated November 2, 2004, wherein this court has clearly opined here as under (page 87 of 273 ITR) : "9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer question No. 2 in favour of assessee and against the Revenue. In other word....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....use the entire prosecution in view of a conclusive finding of the Income-tax Tribunal that there is no concealment of income becomes devoid of jurisdiction and under section 254 of the Act, a finding of the Appellate Tribunal supersedes the order of the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) more so when the Assessing Officer cancelled the penalty levied. In our view, once the finding of concealment and subsequent levy of penalties under section 271(1)(c) of the Act has been struck down by the Tribunal, the Assessing Officer has no other alternative except to correct his order under section 154 of the Act as per the directions of the Tribunal. As already noticed, the subject-matter of the com- plaint before this court is concealme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Income-tax Act has been set aside by the competent court, then certainly the prosecution of the applicants under section 276C read with section 278B of the Income-tax Act has to be quashed automatically. 10. The same view has been taken by this High Court in the case of Suresh- chand Gupta v. Union of India [1998] 233 ITR 783 (MP) ; [1998] 1 MPLJ 49, wherein it is held, "where the levy of penalty on the assessee has been set aside by the Tribunal and also confirmed by the High Court in income- tax reference case then certainly the very foundation of prosecution under sections 276C and 277 automatically demolished, therefore, the prosecu- tion on the basis of the complaint filed by the Income-tax Department against the assessee i....