TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1995 (9) TMI 63
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant is shown as the third accused in the said first information report and the concern of which he is the proprietor is the first accused. It refers to a complaint by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Headquarters (Administration), II, Madras. According to the complaint, it was found in a search of his office premises that he had forged the income-tax challans purported to have been issued by Indian Bank, Sowcarpet Branch, with regard to four of his clients and on a suspicion of the challans, the matter was cross-checked by the Assistant Commissioner. On that basis, the first information report was filed stating that the appellant had forged to the extent of Rs. 3,25,857. The details o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tax Act, 1961, to represent an assessee under section 288(1) of the Income-tax Act. Article III. -- That the said Sri Narendra Kumar Mohnot having his office in the name and style of ' Mohnot and Co.' at No. 38, College Road, Nungambakkam, Madras-6, has fraudulently obtained/tried to obtain income-tax refunds in the name of non-existent business concerns by producing bogus tax deduction certificates. Thus, Sri Narendra Kumar Mohnot has committed grave misconduct for which he is liable to be disqualified under section 288(5)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to represent an assessee under section 288(1) of the Income-tax Act." In the statement of imputa tion of misconduct sent along with the articles of charge shown in annexure-II, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... no contention before the learned judge that because of the initiation of t he criminal proceedings, the disciplinary action should be stopped till the disposal of the criminal proceedings. In this appeal, the only contention urged by learned counsel for the appellant is that the disciplinary action should be stopped till the criminal proceedings initiated against the appellant are concluded. Learned counsel places reliance in this connection on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kusheshwar Dubey v. Bharath Cooking Coal Ltd., AIR 1988 SC 2118 ; [1989] 74 FJR 86 and P. J. Sunderarajan v. Unit Trust of India [1993] 1 LLJ 168. In the former case, the court found that the criminal action and the disciplinary proceedings were grounded upon ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, particularly when we do not intend to lay down any general guideline. " In the latter case, the court found that in the enquiry before the criminal court many witnesses had already been examined and it expected the trial to be completed within three months. In those circumstances, the court granted stay of all further proceedings in the disciplinary enquiry. Learned counsel invities our attention to the judgment of a learned single judge of this court in P. J. Sunderarajan v. Deputy General Manager, Unit Trust of India, Madras [1990] 11 MLJ 51, That judgment was reversed by a Division Bench of this court and the judgment of the Division Bench was challenged in P. J. Sundararajan v. Unit Trust of India [1993] 1 LLJ 168 referred to e....