2002 (10) TMI 60

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... passed by the Sessions Judge, Faridkot, whereby, the order of discharge passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot, for an offence under sections 276C and 277 read with section 278B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was set aside. The Income-tax Department had sought prosecution of the petitioners, inter alia, on the ground that the petitioners have claimed depreciation at the rate of 40 per c .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Judicial Magistrate was set aside by the revisional court holding that the prosecution initiated by the Income-tax Officer is independent of the penalty proceedings and, thus, concluded that the order of discharge passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is not sustainable. The petitioners moved Criminal Miscellaneous No. 45061 of 2002 placing on record the order passed by the Income-tax .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n offence under sections 276C and 277 read with section 278B of the Income-tax Act. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court, mentioned above, wherein, it has been held that if the penalty proceedings have been set aside in the departmental proceedings then the very basis of launching of the prosecution against the assessee stands knocked down. In such facts, the Supreme Court had quashed the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X