9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (5) TMI 31X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner was served with two summonses purported to be issued under section 68 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 8th Court, Calcutta, under case number as aforesaid directing the petitioner to attend the court on the date of hearing. It appears from the said complaints that Sri S. R. Dey, Income-tax Officer, Central Circle-XVIII, Calcutta, has prayed for taking cognizance of the offence under section 277 of the Act against the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has come to this writ court on the ground that the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle XVIII, Calcutta, has no authority and/or jurisdiction to file the complaints for the offence alleged to have been committed in the proceeding under sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arned advocate for the petitioner has argued with force that the act done or caused to be done in lodging the complaints is contrary to and inconsistent with the provision of law and the writ court should interfere in the matter as the proceedings taken by the respondents are not warranted in law. He has drawn the attention of this court to the provisions of the Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Act, 1976, and in particular to section 14(1) of the Act as to the disclosure of income in a case of search and seizure. He has drawn the attention of this court to the fact that notwithstanding anything contained in any of the Acts mentioned in sub-section (1) of section 8 or the Wealth-tax Act, the amount of income so declared or, as the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Income-tax Officer before whom a proceeding under the Income-tax Act, 1961, is pending is deemed to be a civil court for the purposes of section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. prosecution under sections 193 and 196 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, can never be considered to be a proceeding under the Income-tax Act. Section 127 of the Income-tax Act authorises the Commissioner to transfer any case from one Income-tax Officer to any other Income-tax Officer. It was found that the court before which the offences under sections 193 and 196 were committed should file the complaint as contemplated by section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Criminal Procedure Code. He has also referred to the decision reported in Veerakistiah v. ITO [1983] 139 ITR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shall be punishable. It appears further that section 279 of the Income-tax Act provides that a person shall not be proceeded against for an offence under section 275A, 276A, 276B, 276C, 276CC, 276D, 277, 278 or 278A except at the instance of the Commissioner. An argument has been advanced to the effect that the person who has lodged a complaint is not competent and he has no jurisdiction to lodge the complaint Regard being had to the materials on record, this court does not appreciate such argument as advanced. There is no quarrel as to the principle of law. Considering the materials on record, this court finds that the petitioner has committed an offence within the mischief of section 277 of the Incometax Act and the person who has lodged ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
