9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Petitioner invoking inherent powers of the court under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, to quash the trial for various offences under the Indian Penal Code and section 277 of the Income-tax Act. - Contention regarding applicability of section 277 of the Income-tax Act to the petitioner as an income-tax practitioner. - Sanction for prosecution under the Indian Penal Code and jurisdiction of the Chief Commissioner to file a complaint. - Notice under section 276 CC of the Income-tax Act and territorial jurisdiction. - Lack of mention of the provision of law in the complaint. Analysis: The petitioner, accused in a criminal case involving offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Income-tax Act, sought to quash the trial using the court's inherent powers under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The case involved allegations of forging tax deduction certificates, submitting false income returns, and obtaining fraudulent tax refunds. The petitioner, an income-tax practitioner, along with other accused, was accused of conspiring to commit these offences. Despite an earlier quash petition being dismissed, the petitioner initiated a second round of quash petitions prior to being questioned under section 313 of the Cr. P. C. Regarding the contention on the applicability of section 277 of the Income-tax Act to the petitioner, the court rejected the argument that only an assessee could be liable under this section. The court clarified that any individual, including the petitioner acting outside his professional capacity, could be held accountable for false statements or accounts under the Act. The court distinguished a previous case where an auditor was not held liable for false returns prepared based on inaccurate information, emphasizing the petitioner's direct involvement in the fraudulent activities. The petitioner also raised concerns about the sanction for prosecution under the Indian Penal Code and the jurisdiction of the Chief Commissioner to file a complaint. The court dismissed these contentions, emphasizing that prosecution under the Income-tax Act required authorization from the Commissioner and that the Chief Commissioner's administrative role allowed for the filing of complaints across different jurisdictions. Furthermore, the court addressed the petitioner's arguments regarding the necessity of a notice under section 276 CC of the Income-tax Act and territorial jurisdiction. The court clarified that the present prosecution did not involve a failure to furnish income returns but rather fraudulent activities, making the notice requirement irrelevant. Additionally, the court affirmed that the complaint's mention of different Commissioners of Income-tax established the jurisdictional competence of the Chief Commissioner to file the complaint. Lastly, the court dismissed the contention that the complaint did not specify the law under which it was filed, noting that it was a complaint under section 200 of the Cr. P. C. filed by a public servant in the discharge of official duties, thus upholding the legality of the proceedings. Ultimately, the court dismissed the petition, affirming the continuation of the trial against the petitioner and other accused.
|
