Bombay H.C : The petitioner was prosecuted by the respondents under ss. 276C and 277 of the IT Act, 1961, r/w s. 279(1) of the IT Act on the ground

High Court Of Bombay

Govind K. Popley vs. G.M. Kini, First Income-Tax Officer & Ors.

Sections 276C, 277

Asst. Year 1979-80

D.G. Deshpande, J.

Criminal Appln. No. 616 of 1994

4th February, 2000

Counsel AppearedArun P. Sathe with R.S. Apte, for the Petitioner : H.V. Mehta, for the Respondents : S.G. Rajput, for the State

JUDGMENT

D.G. DESHPANDE, J. :

Heard advocates for the petitioner and the respondents. A.P.P. for the State/respondent present. The petitioner was prosecuted by the respondents under ss. 276C and 277 of the IT Act, 1961, r/w s. 279(1) of the IT Act on the ground that the petitioner has committed a default of concealing his income by making false entries and statements, etc., by undervaluing the closing stock for the asst. yr. 1979-80. The accused/petitioner filed an application before the Metropolitan Magistrate on the ground that the basis of the complaint is not in existence in view of the findings given by the CIT(A) by his order dt. 11th March, 1991. The CIT has given a finding in the said order that there is no concealment and, secondly, there is no discrepancy in the quantum of closing stock since the applicant is following a particular method of valuation of stock. However, the magistrate rejected this application on the ground that the proceedings before the appellate authority of the income-tax and the Court were two independent proceedings and the criminal Court can independently decide the allegations made by the applicant before it without reference to the findings given by the Departmental authorities.

Even after hearing counsel for the Revenue I am unable to agree with the observations made by the magistrate in view of the recent position of law in this regard as laid down by the Supreme Court and particularly when the offence is said to have been committed because of a particular valuation and when the Departmental authorities have themselves given findings that the method of valuation adopted by the petitioner is not at all wrong or illegal, nothing remains in the complaint. Consequently, the petition is allowed. Rule made absolute. The complaint under the aforesaid sections of the IT Act against the petitioner is quashed.

[Citation :250 ITR 613]

Malcare WordPress Security