Bandhu Machinery Pvt. Ltd. and Others vs Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and Another

R.S. Sodhi, J.—This revision petition is directed against the judgment and order of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate dated February 22, 2001, whereby the learned Magistrate has refused to drop proceedings initiated by the Department u/s 276C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on an application made by the petitioner. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that in penalty proceedings, the Tribunal has held that sufficient cause has been shown and sufficient evidence has been adduced to show that there has been no willful concealment and consequently no penalty was imposable. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in view of this finding of the Tribunal, no prosecution could be sustained. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-Department has drawn my attention to Section 278E of the Income Tax Act, where question of means read is left open to the assessed to be dislodged in defense.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and in the facts and circumstances of this case, where the addition of Rs. 80,000 has become final vide an order of the Tribunal dated July 20, 1992. The adjudication in the penalty proceedings cannot be binding on the criminal court. It must arrive at its own decision on an independent evaluation of evidence adduced before it and the assessed will have all opportunity u/s 278E of the Income Tax Act to dispel the presumption. In this view of the matter, I find no infirmity in the order under challenge.

Crl. Rev. No. 630 of 2001 is dismissed.