BHOLA MATH KESHARI VS STATE OF BIHAR
1999 P T D 2374
[227 I T R 823]
[Patna High Court (India)]
Before B. N. Agrawal, J.
BHOLA MATH KESHARI
Versus
STATE OF BIHAR and another
Criminal Miscellaneous Nos.4404, 4991, 4823 and 4969 of 1991, decided on 19/12/1996.
Income-tax---
----Prosecution---Best judgment assessment---Prosecution launched-- Assessment set aside by C.I.T. and Tribunal---Application by assessee to quash prosecution---Prosecution quashed---Justified---Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.144.
A best judgment assessment order was passed under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the case of the assessee. The order was set aside and the matter was remanded by the Commissioner of Income-tax and this was upheld by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in second appeal. Prosecution was launched against the assessee on the basis of the best judgment assessment order. On an application by the assessee, praying for the prosecution to be quashed, since the original best assessment order had gone:
Held, that as the Revenue has not disputed the assessee's contention, the prosecution of the assessee was liable to be quashed.
Bipin Kumar Sinha for Petitioner.
S.K. Sharan for Respondent
JUDGMENT
This application and Criminal Miscellaneous Nos.4991, 4823 and 4969 of 1991 are being disposed of by this common order as a common question is involved therein.
It appears that a best judgment assessment order was passed under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), against the assessee in relation to four different years. Prosecution of the petitioner was launched in these four cases because of passing of best judgment assessment against the petitioner. It appears that against the said assessment order, the matter was taken in appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax, who has set aside the order of the Assessing Officer and remanded the matter. The said remand order has been upheld in further appeal by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. It has been stated that since the basis of the order has gone, prosecution of the petitioner should not be allowed to continue.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue has not disputed the aforesaid position, but has stated that liberty should be given to the Revenue to launch prosecution, if after remand a fresh order is passed by the Assessing Officer and, according to the same, the petitioner can be prosecuted.
Accordingly, these four applications are allowed and prosecution of the petitioner in all these four cases is hereby quashed.
I may, however, observe that this order shall not preclude the Revenue from launching fresh prosecution, if so advised, in case the Assessing Officer passed a fresh order and the occasion arises for launching the prosecution.
These applications are thus, disposed of.
M.B.A./2070/FCApplication disposed