TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the complaint for offences under the Indian Penal Code was barred by Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in relation to the false statement made in Form No. 37G; (ii) Whether the material disclosed a prima facie case for framing charges under Sections 276C(1), 277 and 278 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the connected offences under the Indian Penal Code.
Issue (i): Whether the complaint for offences under the Indian Penal Code was barred by Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in relation to the false statement made in Form No. 37G.
Analysis: The false declaration in Form No. 37G was treated as a document connected with income-tax proceedings and not as a mere statement before the registering authority. Since the form was intended to be forwarded for action by the Income-tax Department, the alleged fabrication and use of the document were held to relate to judicial proceedings within the meaning of the income-tax process, and the complaint by the Income-tax Officer was treated as maintainable for the offences alleged under the IPC.
Conclusion: The bar under Section 195(1)(b)(i) did not defeat the complaint for the IPC offences.
Issue (ii): Whether the material disclosed a prima facie case for framing charges under Sections 276C(1), 277 and 278 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the connected offences under the Indian Penal Code.
Analysis: The Court held that the understatement of the sale consideration in Form No. 37G and the surrounding circumstances were sufficient at the charge-framing stage to indicate an attempt to evade tax. It further held that the false verification in the form could attract Section 277, that abetment by the second petitioner could attract Section 278, and that the same document could constitute fabricated false evidence for the IPC offences under Sections 193, 196, 199 and 200. The case was at the stage of framing charges, where detailed evaluation of defence was not warranted and only a prima facie view was required.
Conclusion: A prima facie case was made out for framing charges under the Income-tax Act and the connected IPC provisions.
Final Conclusion: The revisional challenge to the order directing framing of charges failed, and the matter was left to proceed before the Magistrate on the charges found maintainable.
Ratio Decidendi: At the stage of framing charges, the court need only see whether the material discloses a prima facie case, and if so, it should not enter into a detailed appraisal of defence or evidence.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
