9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 33X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (hereafter referred as 'Act'), 1961, be quashed, as it is against the law. 2. For disposal of this criminal misc. case, the facts of the case may be summarized as under:- 3. That opposite party, Union of India, through Assistant Commissioner Income Tax, Range-1, Lucknow filed a complaint Case bearing No.1183 of 2006, under Section 276-C and 277 read with Section 278-B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Customs (Economic Offences), Lucknow with allegation that the petitioners failed to substantiate the payments made in the nature of incentives and commissions, and furnished false and inflated expenses in the nature of business, promotion, repairs, in order to conceal their tax liability ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n order dated 22.12.2004 and the liability of petitioners was further reduced to the tune of Rs. 4,80,974/- 8. The petitioners further filed an appeal at Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, under Section 143(3), which was decided by the Tribunal on 27.09.2005, whereby the order dated 18.09.2002 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) was modified and a further relief of Rs. 3,03,843/- was allowed to the petitioners and a total taxable income of the petitioners, as alleged by the Income Tax Department, came down to Rs. 6,48,998/-, which is clear by annexure No.-7 to the petition. 9. During pendency of the litigation petitioners were compelled by the department of Income Tax to deposit Rs. 2,40,000/- in twelve equal installments per months, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 278-B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which is not permissible under the law as opined by the court. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioners referred the case of K.C. Builders and another Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in Income Tax Reports (Vol. 265) 562, in which Hon'ble Apex Court opined that the finding of the Appellate Tribunal was conclusive and the prosecution could not be sustain, since the penalty was cancelled following the Tribunal order and no offence survive under the Income Tax, thereafter, quashing of the prosecution was automatically allowing the prayer to proceed further, would be an idle an empty formality. In other case cited by learned counsel for petitioner "Brij Mohan Gupta Vs. Union of India (Hig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
