Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. - (1.) THE petitioner filed the income-tax return for the assessment year 1975-76 on March 10, 1976, in respect of which an assessment was framed on February 26, 1977. THE petitioner filed a revised return on October 20, 1978, in response to a notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act"), and thereafter, assessment was framed on October 16, 1979. Against the order of the Income-tax Officer, the petitioner preferred an appeal which was accepted on November 30, 1974, but on further appeal by the Department, the Tribunal vide order dated May 5, 1987, decided the matter against the petitioner against which a reference is pending in this court. THE Department filed a complaint on March 26, 1990, under Sections 276C and 277 of the Act alleging concealment of income.
(2.) THIS petition for quashing has been filed on the ground that the cause of action for filing a complaint was on November 16, 1979, when a finding of concealment of income was recorded and in any case on May 5, 1987, when the Tribunal restored the said finding. It is submitted that a complaint cannot be allowed to be filed long after the finding of concealment of income is recorded unless there is a valid explanation. Learned counsel for the Department submits that the reason for the delay in filing of the complaint was that after the order of the Tribunal dated May 5, 1987, the matter was examined and penalty was imposed which was finalised by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) on August 16, 1988, and thereafter, steps were taken for obtaining authorisation order under Section 279(1) for launching the prosecution and in that process, time was taken and authorisation was received on March 26,1990, and complaint was filed on the same day.
(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Madras High Court in S. Vaidyanathan, ITO v. Dr. B. Mathuram and Sons [1989] 179 ITR 463. In the said judgment, it was held that the proceedings will be liable to be stayed, if further proceedings are pending before the Department even though the complaint may be held to be maintainable.;