PRAKASH KANHAYALAL KANKARIYA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AHMEDNAGAR CIRCLE, AHMEDNAGAR THROUGH PRASHANT B. GANDHALE

PDF · subscribers
APPLN/565/2024HC BombayHCBM03004960202418 November 2024Author: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE Y. G. KHOBRAGADE2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court granted leave to withdraw the criminal application. The Court reasoned that since the assessment order, which forms the basis of the prosecution for offences under Section 276C read with Section 278E of the Income Tax Act, is under challenge in an appeal pending before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, it would be just and proper to keep the criminal prosecution proceeding (R.C.C. No. 256 of 2018) sine die until the decision of the appeal. The application was disposed of as withdrawn. The Court also clarified that if the appeal is decided against the applicant, they would be at liberty to pray for the quashment of the complaint before the High Court.

What were the facts?

The applicant, Prakash Kanhayala Kankariya, filed a criminal application before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench. The application was directed against the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmednagar Circle. The prosecution proceeding, R.C.C. No. 256 of 2018, was initiated for offences under Section 276C read with Section 278E of the Income Tax Act. The basis of this prosecution was an assessment order passed by the Income Tax Department. However, this assessment order was under challenge in an appeal pending before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The applicant sought to withdraw the criminal application.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the criminal prosecution under Section 276C read with Section 278E of the Income Tax Act should be stayed pending the decision of the appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which challenges the underlying assessment order. Assessee's Contention: The learned Counsel for the applicant sought leave to withdraw the application on the ground that the subject matter of the complaint is based on an assessment order that is currently under challenge in an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Therefore, it would be appropriate to keep the prosecution proceedings sine die until the appeal is decided. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contention from the revenue. However, the revenue initiated the prosecution, implying their stance that the prosecution is valid.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 276C,Section 278E

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

32(B)-Cr-Apln-565-2024.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 565 OF 2024 PRAKASH KANHAYALAL KANKARIYA VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AHMEDNAGAR CIRCLE, AHMEDNAGAR THROUGH PRASHANT B. GANDHALE .… Mr. R. R. Chandak, Advocate for the Applicant Mrs. Kalpalata Patil Bharaswadkar, APP for Respondent – State .… CORAM : Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. DATE : 18.11.2024 PER COURT :-

1.

On instructions, the learned Counsel for the Applicant seeks leave to withdraw the Application on the ground that the subject matter of the complaint initiated by the complainant Income Tax Department is based on the order passed by the Income Tax Tribunal. However, said assessment order is under challenge in Appeal, which is pending. Since the Respondent Income Tax Authority filed a proceeding for prosecution of the present Applicant / accused for the offence punishable under Section 276C read with Section 278E of the Income Tax Act, which is under consideration before the Income Tax Appellate 1 of 2 2024:BHC-AUG:27139

(( 2 )) 32(B)-Cr-Apln-565-2024 Authority, therefore, it would be just and proper to keep the proceeding of R.C.C. No.256 of 2018 sine die till decision of the Appeal.

2.

Leave granted. The Application is disposed of as withdrawn.

3.

It is made clear that if the Appellate Court decides the Appeal against the present Applicant, in that event, the Applicant will be at liberty to pray for quashment of the complaint before this Court. [ Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. ]

SMS 2 of 2

More judgments on Section 276C

All 25 judgments and leading authorities on Section 276C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →