O.P.Jain, J. - (1.) THE brief facts of Case No. 4730 of 1994 arc that the petitioner filed its return of income in the year 1987-88. While passing the assessment order, the Income-tax Officer added Rs. 74,000 and Rs. 69,300 as unexplained income. THE asscssee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax who allowed it partly. Being dissatisfied the assessee-applicant filed an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, where it is pending.
(2.) ON the basis of the additions made by the Income-tax Officer, penalty proceedings have been initiated and an appeal has been filed against the same. The penalty has been reduced from Rs. 40,000 to Rs. 26,000 by the Commissioner of Income-tax and an appeal is pending before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Under these circumstances, a complaint has been filed by respondent No. 2 against the petitioner in the court of the Special C. J. M., Allahabad. The facts in Case No. 4712 of 1994 are almost similar and need not be mentioned in detail. It is sufficient to say that in this case also some addition was made by the Income-tax Officer and penalty was levied. An appeal was filed which was partly allowed and a second appeal filed by the assessee is pending before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.
(3.) THE contention in both the cases is that during the pendency of the appeal, criminal prosecution could not be launched and if the Department has filed the complaint, proceedings in the complaint case should be stayed till the appeal is decided by the Tribunal. Learned counsel has not prayed for quashing of the criminal proceedings pending in the court of the Special C. J. M., Allahabad. Learned counsel has reproduced the orders passed by this court in various cases from time to time. In those cases, in similar circumstances, this court has stayed the proceedings in the criminal complaint. Learned counsel has also cited a copy of my order in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 4655 of 1994 in which criminal proceedings were stayed up to a particular date.;