B.M. Lal, J. - (1.) SRI V.K. Upadhyaya, for the petitioner, and SRI Shekhar SRIvastava, for the respondents, are heard.
(2.) BY this petition, the petitioner seeks an order, direction or writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the notice dated November 12, 1992 (contained in annexure-6 to the writ petition), whereby the petitioner is called upon to show cause as to why an order imposing penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"), be not passed against him and also quashing an order dated April 15, 1993 (contained in annexure-11 to the writ petition), whereby the Tribunal, Respondent No. 1, refused to stay proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act initiated against the petitioner. The short facts leading to this petition are as under : The petitioner is an assessee under the Act and was assessed for the years 1990-91 and 1991-92 by the Assessing Officer, against which he preferred appeals which were decided by a consolidated order dated August 14, 1992 passed by respondent No. 2. By the order dated August 14, 1992, respondent No. 2 held that the petitioner did not disclose all the facts material to the computation of the total income in respect of disallowed/ enhanced claims and thus had concealed particulars of income and furnished inaccurate particulars thereof and accordingly, by another order dated August 14, 1992, respondent No. 2 issued notices to the petitioner for imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) read with Clause (iii) and Explanation 1 thereof, for the assessment years 1990-91 and 1991-92. Against the order dated August 14, 1992, passed by respondent No, 2, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, respondent No. 1, which is still pending.
(3.) IN the meantime, on November 12, 1992, respondent No. 4 also issued notice to the petitioner for imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the assessment year 1991-92. Thereafter, on March 11, 1993, the petitioner filed an application before respondent No. 1 praying therein that the penalty proceedings against the petitioner may be stayed but the application made by the petitioner has been rejected by respondent No. 1 by the impugned order dated April 15, 1993. Hence this petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned notice dated November 12, 1992, issued by respondent No. 4 for the assessment year 1991-92 is illegal and without jurisdiction, firstly, because at the time of issuance of the impugned notice, no assessment proceedings were pending before respondent No. 4 and, secondly, because for the same assessment year, i.e., 1991-92, notice dated August 14, 1992, was already issued by respondent No. 2 and since the proceedings under Section 271 of the Act entail penal consequences and are penal in nature, issuance of two parallel notices under Section 271 of the Act for the same assessment year 1991-92 by respondent No. 2 and by respondent No. 4 both is barred by the principle of double jeopardy.;