AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (12) TMI 202
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s Hazari Courts, Delhi. 2. Vide the aforesaid application, the petitioner sought staying of the criminal proceedings against him on the ground that against the Assessment Order ('AO'), the petitioner had already filed an appeal, which is pending for adjudication. 3. Mr. Ganesh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argued that the complaint case filed by the respondent/Income Tax Department is liable to be quashed on the ground that at the time of filing of the criminal complaint, the petitioner had attained the age of 70 years, thus, no prosecution can be initiated against him. 4. In support of the aforenoted submission, learned senior counsel has heavily relied upon the case bearing Criminal Revision Petiti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e deposits, summon under Section 131 (1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('IT Act') dated 02.09.2011 was issued to the petitioner. Having knowledge qua start of the inquiries with regard to the source of funds deposited by the petitioner in the aforesaid foreign bank account, the petitioner admitted the same vide letter dated 03.10.2011, wherein he firstly stated that the information with the Department is unauthentic/unreliable and then agreed to deposit income tax on account of the balance exists in the foreign bank account in his name. Copy of the same is annexed as Annexure-I to the complaint filed by the petitioner. Vide letter dated 07.10.2011, the petitioner again offered to deposit income tax on the undisclosed deposits made by him in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., there is no claim of quashing of the proceedings. When ultimately the result to come out of the proceedings before the appellate authorities have a definite bearing on the cases alleged against the respondents, we find that the High Court is justified in granting the interim order it did and we do not think that such an interim order calls for interference at our hands. The learned counsel on either side relied on several decisions, but in the view we have taken it is unnecessary to refer to those decisions." 9. On the other hand, Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, learned senior standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Department submitted that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands and has tried to mislead this....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....c.) of the Act, the petitioner had attained the age of 63 years and 64 years respectively. Therefore, reliance placed on Instruction No.5051/1991, dated 07.02.1991 is misplaced as it is not applicable to the facts of the present case for the reason the petitioner had not attained the age of 70 years at the time of commission of offence as provided. 11. Learned counsel submitted that in reply to the application filed by the petitioner, the Department stated that at the time of filing of Complaint No.70/04, the petitioner had not filed any appeal in respect of the AO, subject matter of said complaint, however, the same had been filed as an afterthought with a view to thwart the criminal proceedings pending against him. It was further state....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on merits, therefore, benefit of the same cannot be given to the present petitioner. 16. In the impugned order, the learned Trial Court has recorded that both the complaints have been filed under Sections 276C (1), 276D & 277 IT Act. The grounds of appeal and statements of facts clearly establish that there was no ground in either of the appeal in respect of the offence U/s 276D IT Act. The appeal had been filed challenging the AO and consequential outcome of imposition of penalty U/s 271(1) (c) IT Act. Thus, at any count, the outcome of the appeal filed on behalf of the petitioner will have no bearing on the present complaint at least in respect of offence U/s 276D IT Act. Moreover, no prayer for quashing of the proceedings was made by ....