JUDGMENT
1. Heard Shri Arjun Singhal for the petitioner and Shri Rakesh Ranjan Agrawal for the respondents on the question of admission.
2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the contemplated prosecution proceedings under Sections 276C and 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), for the assessment year 1981-82, before the Commissioner of Income-tax, Meerut, and further the notice dated February 21, 1989, issued by the Assistant Director of Income-tax (Prosecution), Meerut, on behalf of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Meerut, contained in annexure "5" to the writ petition.
3. It is submitted that the income-tax authorities while assessing income-tax upon the petitioner for the assessment year 1981-82 found certain irregularities to have been committed by the petitioner in order to evade tax and, therefore, the Commissioner of Income-tax proposed to prosecute the petitioner under Sections 276C and 277 of the Act and for this purpose a notice was issued on February 21, 1989.
4. Shri Singhal, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that against the assessment order the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") and the Tribunal by its order dated August 23, 1990, quashed the assessment order and, therefore, learned counsel submits that the necessary ingredients for issuance of the notice for the prosecution of the petitioner are lacking and on this basis the proceedings deserve to be quashed.
5. However, Sri Rakesh Ranjan Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the Income-tax Department, submits that against the assessment order the petitioner filed two appeals, one against the quantum of income-tax and another against the penalty, before the Tribunal, and only partial addition was confirmed. It is not that the entire assessment proceeding's including the penalty proceedings have been quashed. This being so, learned counsel submits that at this stage no interference in writ jurisdiction is called for, quashing the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner.
6. In P. Jayappan v. S.K. Perumal, First ITO [1984] 149 ITR 696, the apex court ruled that the pendency of the reassessment proceedings cannot act as a bar to the institution of the criminal prosecution for offences punishable under Section 276C or Section 277 of the Act. Thus this case squarely applies to the facts of the instant case and hence, this court is of the opinion that at this stage no interference by this court under Article 226 of the Constitution is called for, for quashing the notice dated February 21, 1989, issued by the Assistant Director of Income-tax (Prosecution), Meerut, against the petitioner or in any manner for quashing the proceedings for the offences punishable under Section 276C or Section 277 of the Act.
7. As a result thereof, this petition is dismissed. The interim order dated April 18, 1989, modified by order dated November 9, 1990, is hereby vacated.