Case Details

Citation(s)
2012 SLG 2996 2012 SLD 2996 (2012) 341 ITR 646
Bombay High Court

A.P. BHANGALE, J.

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

Income Tax Officer

v.

Nandlal and Co.

Law:

Section:

Section 276C, read with section 277, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Offence and prosecution - Wilful attempt to evade tax - Where penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) on assessee was quashed by Tribunal, prosecution under sections 276C and 277 could not be sustained [In favour of assessee] CASES REFERRED TO G.L. Didwania v. ITO [1997] 224 ITR 687 (SC) (para 4), K.C. Builders v. Asstt. CIT [2004] 265 ITR 562/135 Taxman 461 (SC) (para 4) and H.T. Power Structure (P.) Ltd. v. R.P. Sharma [2008] 299 ITR 363/166 Taxman 122 (Guj) (para 4) V.V. Bhangde and B.G. Kulkarni for the Appellant. JUDGMENT 1. As common question of law arises for consideration in the abovereferred matters, they are being disposed by this common judgment and order. (The facts are taken from Criminal Revision Application No. 132 of 1998). 2. By this revision application, the revision applicant prayed for to quash and set aside the judgment and order dated January 27, 1998, passed by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, in Criminal Miscellaneous Revision Application No. 823 of 1997. 3. It is the case of the revision applicant that as an Income-tax Officer a criminal Complaint No. 138/1992 was filed by the applicant alleging offences punishable under sections 276C and 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur. In that proceeding, the non-applicant had moved an application for discharge on the ground that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (in short "the ITAT") had set aside the penalty and, therefore, prosecution could not be sustainable. The trial court had rejected the application filed by the non-applicant, therefore, the revision application was filed before the learned Sessions Judge, Nagpur. By the judgment and order dated January 27, 1998, the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, allowed the revision of the non-applicant and discharged them. 4. At the hearing of this application, it is submitted as regards the allegation of concealment of income, that penalty proceedings initiated under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act was started by the Department which was quashed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. In that matter,…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492