1978 (7) TMI 5 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the court to take cognizance of offenses under sections 193, 196, and 120B of the IPC.
2. Validity of the complaint filed under sections 277 and 278 of the Income Tax Act.

Analysis:

The judgment revolves around the jurisdiction of the court to take cognizance of offenses under sections 193, 196, and 120B of the IPC. The petitioners argued that as per section 195 of the Cr. PC, the court could only take cognizance based on a written complaint from the Income Tax Officer (ITO) or a higher authority. The complaint in question was not filed by the ITO but by another officer at the behest of the Commissioner. The court held that for offenses under sections 193, 196, and 120B of the IPC, the complaint must originate from the ITO or the Income-tax Commissioner directly, as specified in the law. Since the complaint did not meet this requirement, the proceedings related to these offenses were quashed.

Regarding the validity of the complaint filed under sections 277 and 278 of the Income Tax Act, the court found that the complaint for these offenses was filed by the Income-tax Commissioner himself. The court noted that under section 279 of the I.T. Act, a complaint at the instance of the Commissioner by a third party is permissible for offenses under sections 277 and 278. Therefore, the court ruled that the proceedings concerning these specific offenses would continue in the lower court. Consequently, the petition was dismissed with the modification that the proceedings under sections 277 and 278 of the I.T. Act would proceed, while those related to sections 193, 196, and 120B of the IPC were quashed due to the lack of a valid complaint by the appropriate authority as required by the law.