TMI Blog2006 (3) TMI 120X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 94 which was the amount of refund of excise duty received in the year 1981. The addition made by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner was upheld in the appeal. The application made by the applicants for change in the accounting period was allowed. It was alleged that the excise duty was not credited to its profit and loss account and this was done to avoid income-tax. Accordingly, penalty proceedings were initiated under section 271 (1) (c) of the Income-tax Act and on March 27, 1987, the order was passed imposing penalty to the tune of Rs. 89,08,882. Finally, the Commissioner of Income-tax by order dated March 28, 1990, set aside the penalty which was imposed. Simultaneously, after the penalty proceedings were initiated, a complaint w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 276B, section 276BB, section 276C, section 276CC, section 276D, section 277 or section 278 except with the previous sanction of the Chief Commissioner or Director General or Commissioner: Provided that no such sanction shall be required if the prosecution is at the instance of the Commissioner (Appeals) or the appropriate authority. Explanation.-For the purposes of this section 'appropriate authority' shall have the same meaning as in clause (c) of section 269UA". (1A) A person shall not be proceeded against for an offence under section 276C or section 277 in relation to the assessment for an assessment year in respect of which the penalty imposed or imposable on him under clause (iii) of sub-section (1) of section 271 has been red ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted under section 193 read with section 191 and 192 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegations made against the applicants in the said case were identical that they had not disclosed the refund of excise to the tune of Rs. 27,17,994. The penalty was, therefore, imposed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, Assessment Range V(B), Bombay which, in turn, was set aside by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Bombay. The ratio of the judgment, therefore, in the case of K. C. Builders [2004] 265 ITR 562; [2004] 2 SCC 731 is also squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. In the result Criminal Application No. 44 of 2000 is also allowed in terms of prayer clause (b). Rule is made absolute in the above term ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
