LexCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI versus BHUPEN CHAMPAK LAL DALAL AND ANR. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI v. BHUPEN CHAMPAK LAL DALAL AND ANR. ETC. ~ FEBRUARY 27, 2001 B [S. RAJENDRA BABU AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] Code of Criminal Pmcedure, 1973-Section 151-Stay of pmceed- ings-Appeals regarding assessment of income pending before the Income-Tax Tribunal-Pmceedings in criminal cases also pending-Held, when the find- c ings of the appellate authorities are relevant to the criminal pmceedings pending, the p1vceedings of the criminal court be stayed-Income Tax Act, 1961. Criminal cases were filed against the respondents for the offences punishable under the Income-Tax Act, 1961. Appeal regarding assessment D were also filed before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Respondent filed application for stay of proceedings before the criminal court. Metropolitan Magistrate allowed the application. Sessions Court dismissed the revision petitions filed by the petitioner. High court also dismissed the writ petition and granted interim order staying the proceedings in the criminal cases E before the Metropolitan Magistrate. Hence these Special Leave Petitions. Dismissing the petitions, the Court HELD : 1.1. The prosecution in criminal law and proceedings arising under the Income-tax Act are independent proceedings and there is no F impediment in law for the criminal proceedings to proceed during the pendency of the proceedings under the Act. However, a wholesome rule will have to be adopted when the conclusions arrived at by the appellate authoritises have a relevance and hearing upon the conclusions to be reached in the criminal case, one authority 'viii have to await the outcome of the other authority. [180-C] G G.L Didwania andAnr. v. Income Tax Officer andAnr., [1995) Supp 2 SCC 723; Uuam Chand and Ors. v. Income-Tax Officer, Central Cirr:le Amritsar, [1982] 2 SCC 543; P. Jayappan v. S.K. Perumal, First Income-Tax Officer, Tuticorin, [1984) Supp. SCC 437, referred to. - H CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition 178 COMMR. OF INCOME TAX v. BHUPEN CHAMPAK LAL DALAL (R. BABU,!.] 179 • (Cr!) No. 2430 of 2000 . A ~ From tlK Judgment and Order dated 29.4.99 of the Bombay High Court in Crl. A. No. 613/99 Converted in Crl. W.P. No. 587 of 1999. WITH SLP. (Crl.) Nos. 2995 and 3141of2000. B Altaf Ahmad, Additional Solicitor General, Laxmi Aiyangari, Rajiv Nanda, R.N. Verma, Amit Mahajan, B.V. Bairam Das liltd Ms. Sushma Suri for the Petitioner. Dr. Rajiv Dhavan, Vimal Chandra, S. Dave, Manoj Shukla, S.S. Shinde c and S. V. Deshpande for the Respondents. The Judgment of tlie Court was delivered by RAJENDRA BABU, J. Twelve cases were lodged against the respond- ents under the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter refe1Ted to as 'the Act'] D before the Metropolitan Magistrate for offences punishable wider the Act. 1n relation to the assessments arising wider the Act, appeals had been prefe1Ted either before the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal']. On the basis that _,,,. the appeals were pending the respondents filed applications for stay of the proceedings arising before the criminal court. Several decisions were cited E - before the court to support the contention that the decision of the appellate authorities in the income tax proceedings would be relevant to the criminal prosecution instituted against the respondents. The learned Magistrate, after examining the position in law as to whether the findings of the appellate authorities are relevant for the purpose of the criminal proceedings and to F avoid conflicting decisions of tl1e criminal cowt and the appellate authorities, felt that it would be appropriate to grant an interim order of the tallowing nature: "ORDER •• G The work of recording evidence shall proceed. However, passing of order about framing of charge, discharge of the accused or acquittal of the _,.,.. accused shall be stayed during pendency of the appeals by the accused before the Income Tax Appellate Authorities. These orders will be passed after the appeals filed by the accused before the Income Tax Authorities are finally decided." H 180 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] 2 S.C.R. A Against that order, revision petitions were filed before the Sessions ... Court. The Sessions Comt did not interfere with the order made by the learned i Magistrate and dismissed the same. Thereupon, the matter was carried furth
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.