High Court Of Delhi
Bandhu Machinery (P) Ltd. & Ors. vs. Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate & Anr.
Sections 276C, 278E
R.S. Sodhi, J.
Criminal Revision No. 630 of 2001
13th February, 2002
Counsel Appeared
M.S. Syali with Satyen Sethi, for the Appellants : R.D. Jolly with R.K. Awasthy, for the Respondents
ORDER
R.S. SODHI, J. :
This revision petition is directed against the judgment and order of the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate dt. 22nd Feb., 2001, whereby the learned Magistrate has refused to drop proceedings initiated by the Department under s. 276C of the IT Act on an application made by the petitioner. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that in penalty proceedings, the Tribunal has held that sufficient cause has been shown and sufficient evidence has been adduced to show that there has been no wilful concealment and consequently, the penalty was (sic-not) imposable. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in view of this finding of the Tribunal, no prosecution could be sustained. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Department has drawn my attention to s. 278E of the IT Act, where question of mens rea is left open to the assessee to be dislodged in defence.
2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, where the addition of Rs. 80,000 has become final vide an order of the Tribunal dt. 20th July, 1992, the adjudication in the penalty proceeding cannot be a binding on the Criminal Court. It must arrive at its own decision on an independent evaluation of evidence adduced before it and the assessee will have all opportunity under s. 278E of the IT Act to dispel the presumption. In this view of the matter, I find no infirmity in the order under challenge.
[Citation : 259 ITR 703]
