S.C : The appellant was prosecuted on filing of complaint under provisions of s. 276C(i) and s. 277 of the IT Act, 1961, and under ss. 193, 196 and 420 of the IPC

Supreme Court Of India

V. Gopal vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax

Sections 276C, 277, CPC 245(2)

Asst. Year 1980-81, 1981-82, 1982-83

Y.K. Sabharwal & H.K. Sema, JJ.

Criminal Appeal Nos. 588 to 590 of 1994

12th November, 2002

ORDER

By the court :

The appellant was prosecuted on filing of complaint under provisions of s. 276C(i) and s. 277 of the IT Act, 1961, and under ss. 193, 196 and 420 of the IPC. Three complaints were filed in respect of three assessment years, namely, 1980-81, 1981-82 and 1982-83. The applications filed by the appellant seeking discharge under s. 245(2) of the CrPC were dismissed by learned magistrate. The petitions filed under s. 482 of the CrPC were also dismissed by the High Court. Hence, these appeals.

2. In these appeals learned counsel seeks quashing of the proceedings in view of the subsequent events, namely, the order passed by the Tribunal on 29th June, 1995, setting aside the penalty proceedings and the order passed by the High Court on 21st Jan., 1997, declining reference of the assessing authority under s. 256(1) of the IT Act. We refrain from expressing any opinion about the effect of those orders on the complaint pending before the magistrate. That was not the issue before the High Court nor was it before the magistrate when applications for discharge were filed by the appellant. In case the appellant files any application before the magistrate on that ground, it will be decided by the learned magistrate in accordance with law. Insofar as the impugned order is concerned, we find no infirmity, therefore, the appeals are dismissed.

[Citation : 279 ITR 510]

Scroll to Top
Malcare WordPress Security