As Seen From The Above Order, It Is Clearly Observed By Thedivision Bench That There Was No Concealment Of Income Or Furnishingof Inaccurate Particulars By The v. The Assistantcommissioner Of Income Tax ([2004] 2 Scc 731). In The Saiddecision, The Apex Court Observed As Under

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Criminal Petition No.6043 of 2012 ORDER: This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is filed by A.1 to A.7to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.84 of 2012 pendingon the file of Special Judge for Economic Offences at Hyderabadunder Sections 276C(1), 277, 278 and 278B of the Income Tax Act,1961. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, learnedcounsel for the petitioners submitted in the appeal filed by the firstpetitioner herein in ITTA No.8 of 2005 against the order of the IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad dated 21.12.2004 in ITA No.433 of2000, a Division Bench of this Court in its order dated 05.07.2012 observed as under: “As can be seen from the facts and circumstances of the presentappeal, considered in the light of the decisions cited supra, there was neitherconcealment of income nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The merefact that the assessing authority refused to accept depreciation on the actualvalue for which the Pollution Control Equipment was purchased by theassessee from Novopan and issued notice to bring to tax the amountconstituting the difference in the depreciation value between the WDV in thebooks of Novopan and the value for which it was purchased by theassessee; and on such notice being issued, the assessee volunteeredliability to tax, per se would not amount to concealment. No question offurnishing of inaccurate particulars was involved either. Neither in theassessment proceedings nor in the penalty proceedings nor even in thenotice preceding the assessment was the entire transaction assumed to bea sham and nominal transaction and there was no proposal for ordisallowance of depreciation altogether.” As seen from the above order, it is clearly observed by theDivision Bench that there was no concealment of income or furnishingof inaccurate particulars by the petitioner-A.1 herein. The learned counsel for the petitioners further relied on a decision of the ApexCourt reported in K.C. Builders and another vs. The AssistantCommissioner of Income Tax ([2004] 2 SCC 731). In the saiddecision, the Apex Court observed as under: “Where an order of assessment or reassessment on the basis ofwhich penalty has been levied on the assessee has itself been finally setaside or cancelled by the Tribunal or otherwise, the penalty cannot stand byitself and the same is liable to be cancelled as in the instant case ordered bythe Tribunal and later cancellation of penalty by the authorities.” In view of the above ratio laid down by the Apex Court, theimpugned proceedings against the petitioners herein would amount toabuse of process of law and are liable to be set aside. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedingsin C.C.No.84 of 2012 pending on the file of Special Judge forEconomic Offences at Hyderabad are hereby quashed as against thepetitioners herein. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. 08[th ]August, 2016Tsr ________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO