1967 (11) TMI 32 - SC - Income Tax

Whether section 476 or section 479 A of the Code applies to the instant complaint? Held that - the proceedings under section 26A before respondent No. 1 must be treated as proceedings in a court for the purposes of section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Income-tax Officer however cannot be treated as a revenue court. Though therefore proceedings before the Income-tax Officer are judicial proceedings in a court and section 195(1)(b) applies neither section 476 nor section 479A of the Code would be applicable. It was therefore not incumbent upon respondent No. 1 to follow the procedure laid down in either of these two sections. The first contention of Mr. Gupte therefore must fail. As regards second contention the question raised by him would be one of evidence the appellants can raise it before the Magistrate trying the complaint. We therefore decline to go into that question. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the Income-tax Officer was required to follow specific procedures before filing a complaint for offences under sections 193 and 196 of the Penal Code.
2. Whether the complaint filed by the Income-tax Officer after ceasing to hold the charge of the post was without jurisdiction.

Analysis:

1. The case involved a situation where the Income-tax Officer alleged that the appellants had fabricated documents and provided false evidence during assessment proceedings. The appellants contended that specific procedures under sections 476 and 479A of the Code of Criminal Procedure should have been followed before filing a complaint for offences under sections 193 and 196 of the Penal Code. The court analyzed the relevant provisions and held that the Income-tax Officer, though conducting judicial proceedings, did not fall under the category of a civil, revenue, or criminal court. Therefore, the mandatory procedures under sections 476 and 479A did not apply to the Income-tax Officer. The court dismissed the contention, stating that it was not incumbent upon the officer to follow those specific procedures.

2. The second contention raised was regarding the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer to file a complaint after ceasing to hold the charge of the post. The appellants argued that the complaint was without jurisdiction since the officer was no longer in the position at the time of filing. The court noted that the question of whether the officer still had authority over certain cases pending before him post-transfer was a matter of evidence. The court declined to delve into this question and stated that the appellants could raise it before the Magistrate during the trial of the complaint. Ultimately, the court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the second contention did not warrant further examination at that stage.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court, ruling that the Income-tax Officer was not required to adhere to the specific procedures under sections 476 and 479A before filing the complaint. Additionally, the court did not entertain the jurisdictional question raised by the appellants regarding the officer's authority post-transfer, leaving it open for consideration during the trial proceedings before the Magistrate.