9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Maintainability of the revision petition against an order passed by the court below at an interlocutory stage. 2. Bar under section 279(1A) of the Income-tax Act for prosecution. 3. Trial of offences under section 277 of the Income-tax Act along with sections 193 and 196 of the Penal Code. 4. Bar of limitation under section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 5. Competency of the complaint filed by the Income-tax Officer. Detailed Analysis: 1. The High Court addressed the issue of the maintainability of the revision petition against an order passed by the court below at an interlocutory stage. The court acknowledged the preliminary objection raised by the revenue's counsel that the revision was not maintainable as it was against an order at an interlocutory stage. Despite upholding this objection, the court decided to consider the various legal questions raised regarding the non-maintainability of the complaint and the jurisdiction of the court in taking cognizance of the offence against the accused. 2. The court examined the contention regarding the bar under section 279(1A) of the Income-tax Act for prosecution. The petitioners argued that the prosecution under section 277 was barred as per section 279(1A) since the penalty had been reduced. However, the court found that the reduction in penalty was done by the Tribunal and not the Commissioner, making the protection under section 279(1A) inapplicable in this case. Therefore, the argument that the prosecution was barred under section 279(1A) was rejected. 3. Regarding the trial of offences under section 277 of the Income-tax Act along with sections 193 and 196 of the Penal Code, the court determined that these offences were connected as the ingredients overlapped to form the same transaction. The court highlighted that under section 220 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, these offences could be tried together. 4. The court delved into the issue of the bar of limitation under section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners contended that the prosecution was barred by time as it was launched after the expiry of the period of limitation. However, the court pointed out that the Economic Offence (Inapplicability of Limitation) Act, 1974, specifically excluded the application of section 468 to prosecutions under the Income-tax Act, rendering the plea of limitation raised by the petitioners invalid. 5. Lastly, the court examined the competency of the complaint filed by the Income-tax Officer. The petitioners argued that the complaint was not competent as it was filed by the wrong officer. However, the court rejected this contention, stating that the complaint satisfied the requirements of section 279(1) as it was filed at the instance of the Commissioner, thus upholding the competency of the complaint. In conclusion, the High Court dismissed all contentions raised by the petitioners, ruling that the revision petition was not maintainable and rejecting arguments related to the bar under section 279(1A) of the Income-tax Act, the trial of connected offences, the bar of limitation under section 468, and the competency of the complaint filed by the Income-tax Officer.
|
