9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 270X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Sections 35(B) of Wealth Tax Act, 1957, pending in the Court of learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad. 3. Learned counsel for applicant states that penalty proceedings have been subsequently quashed and that being so, criminal proceedings cannot be maintained. 4. Facts, in brief, giving rise to present application are that Assistant Commissioner, Income Tax/ Assistant Commissioner Wealth Tax Central Circle, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as "complainant") filed a complaint dated 31.03.1994 under Section 35B of Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1957") alleging that applicant Sanjay Gupta was to furnish Wealth Tax Return (hereinafter referred to as "W.T. Return") for Assessment Year (hereinafte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 35B of Act, 1957 reads as under:- "35B. Failure to furnish returns of net wealth. - If a person wilfully fails to furnish in due time the return of his net wealth which he is required to furnish under sub-section (1) of section 14 or by notice given under sub-section (2) of section 14 or under subsection (1) of section 17, he shall be punishable; (i) in a case where the amount of tax, which would have been evaded if the failure had not been discovered, exceeds one hundred thousand rupees, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to seven years and with fine; (ii) in any other case, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three months but whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat their case did not fall within the ambit of Section 40(3) of Finance Act, 1983 yet there exist several circumstances which go to prove that the assessee was given such an advice and acting bonafide under which they did not file the wealth tax return. Taking strength from the ratio of Ramnikalal D. Mehta referred to supra, what could be said is that the assessee were assisted by qualified CAs and if they acted on their advice and did not file wealth tax returns timely, it could not be said that they consciously disregarded their obligations to file such returns. 15. In the result, we are of the view that there existed a bonafide belief constituting a reasonable cause that the assessee's case did not fall within the ambit of Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 04.11.1987 as earlier cost of construction was found defective as under:- Assessment Year Amount 1983-84 Rs. 8,76,000/- 1984-85 Rs. 5,42,000/- 1985-86 Rs. 13,47,229/- 1986-87 Rs. 10,37,920/- 11. Income Tax Authorities accepted revised returns and assessments were completed. Assessing Authority considered difference original return and revised income as concealed income, hence, levied penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1961") for all four assessment years. In the appeal preferred against penalty imposed on the concealment of income, order of penalty was confirmed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) (hereinafter referred to as "CIT(A)"). Thereafter, four complaints were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clusion that there is no concealment of income, since no offence survives under the Income Tax Act thereafter? (c) Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the criminal revision petition vide its impugned order ignoring the settled law as laid down by this Court that the finding of the Appellate Tribunal was conclusive and the prosecution cannot be sustained since the penalty after having been cancelled by the complainant following the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's order no offence survives under the Income Tax Act and thus the quashing of the prosecution is automatic? (d) Whether the finding of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is binding upon the criminal court in view of the fact that the Chief Commissioner and the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hen the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of law because the entire prosecution in view of a conclusive finding of the Income Tax Tribunal that there is no concealment of income becomes devoid of jurisdiction and under Section 254 of the Act, a finding of the Appellate Tribunal supersedes the order of the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) more so when the Assessing Officer cancelled the penalty levied." 13. Court also held that charge of conspiracy was not proved and various offences under the provisions of IPC were also not satisfied, hence, proceedings were liable to be set aside. In this regard, relevant observations made in paras- 29 and 31 read as under:- "29. In this instant case, the charge of conspiracy has not been prove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
