Skip to main content

Prosecution can be launched before Income Tax Assessment completion

 In Rohit Kumar Nemchand Piparia vs The Deputy Director of Income Tax (Inv), petition was filed before the High Court to quash the preceding initiated against the Appellants before the  Court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Economic Offences-II, Egmore, Chennai, taking cognizance for the offence under Section 276C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The Dept. alleged that the petitioner had entered into 165 share transaction during the financial year 2007-08 and filed his return of income for the assessment year 2008-09. Though the tax has been deducted, it was not fully deducted and the petitioner did not disclose in his return of income under the head Capital Gain and paid the tax. Thus, the petitioner failed to show the same in his return of income and attempted to evade payment of tax. Only after deduction by the income tax department, the petitioner had share transactions during the relevant financial year and accepted the same. Therefore, the petitioner committed the offence punishable under Section 276C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The petitioner claimed that the said assessment order has been challenged by the petitioner before the Income Tax Appellate Authority and by an order dated 28.08.2018, the said assessment order has been set aside. Therefore, the very basis of the lodgement of the complaint itself set aside and as such the petitioner is not at all liable to be prosecuted. He further submitted that while being so, suppressing the said fact that the said assessment order itself was set aside, the respondent herein granted sanction order dated 16.10.2018 to prosecute the petitioner under the Income Tax Act. Therefore, on this ground alone, the complaint cannot be sustained as against the petitioner.

The High Court disagreeing with the Petitioner and referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Radheshyam Kejriwal Vs. State of West Bengal & anr, (2011) 3 SCC 437, held that :-

(i) Adjudication proceeding and criminal prosecution can be launched simultaneously; 

(ii)Decision in adjudication proceeding is not necessary before initiating criminal prosecution; 

(iii)Adjudication proceeding and criminal proceeding are independent in nature to each other;

(iv)The finding against the person facing prosecution in the adjudication proceeding is not binding on the proceeding for criminal prosecution;

(v) Adjudication proceeding by the Enforcement Directorate is not prosecution by a competent court of law to attract the provisions of Article 20 (2) of the Constitution or Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; 

(vi)The finding in the adjudication proceeding in favour of the person facing trial for identical violation will depend upon the nature of finding. If the exoneration in adjudication proceeding is on technical ground and not on merit, prosecution may continue; and 

(vii) In case of exoneration, however, on merits where allegation is found to be not sustainable at all and person held innocent, criminal prosecution on the same set of facts and circumstances can not be allowed to continue underlying principle being the higher standard of proof in criminal cases.


Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even
Post a Comment
Read more