9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Whether the complaints filed against the accused for various offenses under the Income-tax Act and Indian Penal Code are valid. - Whether the sanction order for prosecution under sections 276C(1) and 277 of the Income-tax Act is vitiated. - Whether the accused should have been given an opportunity to be heard before the sanction for prosecution was accorded. - Whether the documents subsequent to the date mentioned in the sanction order are relevant for consideration. Analysis: The judgment involves the accused filing petitions under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash further proceedings in three complaints against him for offenses under the Income-tax Act and Indian Penal Code. The complaints allege that the accused, engaged in a tailoring business, concealed income and attempted tax evasion. The complaints were filed with the sanction of the Commissioner of Income-tax. The accused had filed false returns and concealed income, leading to revised assessments and final orders by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The accused challenged the validity of the sanction order for prosecution under sections 276C(1) and 277 of the Income-tax Act. The defense argued that the accused was not given an opportunity to be heard before the sanction, rendering it invalid. However, the court held that section 279 of the Income-tax Act does not require notice to the accused before prosecution. The court cited precedents to support the view that no notice is necessary before passing a sanction order under section 279. Regarding the contention that the sanction should be based on a proposal submitted to the Commissioner of Income-tax, the court found no such requirement in the Act. The court emphasized that the amendment mandating previous sanction of the appropriate authority does not necessitate a proposal for the sanction to be accorded. The court rejected the argument that the sanction order was vitiated due to the absence of a proposal. The defense also raised the issue of documents subsequent to the date mentioned in the sanction order, claiming their relevance for consideration. The court held that the relevance of those documents could only be determined during the trial and not at the stage of challenging the sanction order. Therefore, the court dismissed the petitions, concluding that they did not merit admission. In summary, the judgment upholds the validity of the complaints against the accused for tax evasion and related offenses. It clarifies that no notice to the accused is required before the sanction for prosecution under the Income-tax Act. The court also establishes that the sanction need not be based on a specific proposal and that the relevance of additional documents can be assessed during the trial.
|
