LexP. JAYAPPAN versus S.K. PERUMAL, FIRST INCOME-TAX OFFICER, TUTICORIN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
P. JAYAPPAN
v.
S.K. PERUMAL, FIRST INCOME-TAX
OFFICER; TUTICOR!N
August 17, 1984
(0. CHJNNAPPA REDDY, A.P. SEN AND E.S. VENKATARAMIAH, JJ.J
C
Code of Criminal Procedure, 197:1-Section 482-Criminal proceedings laun-
D
E
F
G
ched against assessre under ~cctions 276C and 277 of Income Tax Act, 1961 for
fi/11.g false i11cnme-tax returns pend.rig finalisation of reassessment proctedings-
Criminal procet'dings ca11i:ot be stopped on mere expectancy of as!esste that there
wif/ b'! favourable find ng in reasses,(me!lt proceedings-Cr1n1inal proceedings ari
no abuse of process of court a.1d cannot be quashed O" srayed bt!fng premature,
Codi:: of Cr/Jn{nal Procedurt', 1973-Seclioa 309-'--Discretf"n to adjourn hear-
ing of criminal case n1u1f be PXercised judicially and not to frustrate object of
crin1inal procfedir gs.
Income Tox Act, 1961, sections 279 ond 273A or any other provision do nol
bar initiating crifnil.al proc,edings for offences und1·r stctions 226C and 277
pending 'e-assessment proceedings,
The petitioner, an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961, filed income·
tax returns which were accepted. Later a search of the petitioner's residence
revealed th'lt the re ti ti oner had suppressed certain business transactions and had
kept false accounts. On the basis of the allegation that the petitioner had deli-
berately filed false returns and had kept fahe accounts with the intention of
using then1 11s genuine evidence under the assessn1cnt proceedings, complaints
were filed againt him in the trial court for taking action against him for offences
punishable under sections 276C and 277 of the ·income Tax Act and under
section<> 193 and 196 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner moved the High
Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the pro·
ceedings contending that the launching of the prosecution was ·a premature one
on the ground that the reassessment proceedings started against him under the
Income Tax Act had not been completed. The High Court dismissed the peti·
tions. The petitioner filed this petition for special leave to appeal. The petitio·
ner did not urge any legal bar for the institution of the proceedings except
stating that in the event of the petitioner being exonerated in the reassessment
proceedings, the prosecutions may have to be dropped.
Dismissing the petition for special leave,
•
• .
,
'
YAYAPPAN v. $.K' PERUMAL
531
HELD : The pendcncy of the reassessment proceedings cannot act as a bar
A
to the institution of the criminal prosecution for offences punishable under
section 276C or section 277 of the Act. The institution of the criminal proceed·
ings cannot in the circumstances also amount to an abuse of the process of
the court. [543 El
There is no provision in law which provides that a prosecution for the
offences in question cannot be launched until reassessment proceedings initiated
B
against the assessee are completed. [ 540 HJ
A mere expectation of success in some prOceeding in appeal or reference
under the Act cannot come in the way of the institution of the criminal proceed·
ings under section 276C, and section 277 of the Act. In the criminal case all the
ingredients of the offence in question have to be established in order to secure the
conviction of the accused. The criminal cou~t no doubt has to give due regard to
the result of any proceeding under the Act having a bearing on the question in
issue and in an appropriate case it may drop the proceedings in the light of an
order passed under the Act. It does not, however, mean that the result of a
proceeding under the Act would be binding on the criminal court. The criminal
court has to judge the case independently on the evidence placed before it.
Otherwise there is a danger of a contention being advanced that whenever the
assessee or any other person liable under the Act has failed to convince the
authorities in the proceedings under the Act that he has not c'eliberately made
any false statement or that he has not fabricated any material evidence, the con-
viction of such person should invariably follow in the criminal court. [541 E-H]
c
D
~
Uttam Chand & Ors. v. lnco1ne-tax Officer, Central Circle, Amritsar, {1982)
I
J·
133 I.T.R. 909, referred to.
M{s. Tetu Rain Raungi Ranz & Anr. v. Incon1e-tax Officer, 'A' Ward. Hoshiar
Pur & Anr., (1984) 145 I.T.R. Ill, upheld.
The view of the Calcutta High Court in Jyoti Prakash Mitter V•Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.