TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
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, before according previous sanction for prosecution under the Income-tax Act, the accused is entitled to notice and an opportunity of hearing. (ii) Whether sanction under section 279 must be preceded by a formal proposal from another income-tax authority. (iii) Whether the sanction was vitiated because all later documents were not considered. (iv) Whether the pendency or possible success of proceedings for reduction or waiver of penalty could bar the prosecution.
Issue (i): Whether, before according previous sanction for prosecution under the Income-tax Act, the accused is entitled to notice and an opportunity of hearing.
Analysis: The statutory language of section 279 was held not to require any notice to the proposed accused. The provision was treated as a safeguard at the stage of authorising prosecution, and not as one that itself inflicts punishment. Reference was made to earlier decisions under analogous sanction provisions, and the view that natural justice required prior hearing was declined.
Conclusion: No prior notice or hearing is before granting sanction under section 279; the issue is decided against the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether sanction under section 279 must be preceded by a formal proposal from another income-tax authority.
Analysis: The wording of section 279 was held to contain no express or implied requirement that sanction can be granted only on the basis of a proposal submitted by some other officer. The sanctioning authority was found competent to act on the material before it without any such procedural prerequisite.
Conclusion: A prior proposal is not a condition precedent to valid sanction under section 279; the issue is decided against the assessee.
Issue (iii): Whether the sanction was vitiated because all later documents were not considered.
Analysis: The relevance of additional documents arising after the date mentioned in the sanction material was held to be a matter for trial and not for examination at the stage of quashing. The court declined to treat the sanction as invalid on that ground in proceedings under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Conclusion: The sanction was not shown to be vitiated on this ground; the issue is decided against the assessee.
Issue (iv): Whether the pendency or possible success of proceedings for reduction or waiver of penalty could bar the prosecution.
Analysis: The possibility of obtaining relief in other proceedings was held not to prevent institution of criminal prosecution for offences under sections 276C and 277. The court applied the principle that criminal proceedings are not barred merely because the assessee may succeed in collateral tax proceedings.
Conclusion: The pendency of penalty-related proceedings does not bar prosecution; the issue is decided against the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The prosecution was found maintainable, the sanctions were upheld, and the petitions for quashing were rejected.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 279 of the Income-tax Act requires previous sanction for prosecution, but it does not mandate prior notice to the proposed accused, a formal initiating proposal, or postponement of prosecution because of pending collateral tax relief proceedings.
TaxTMI 
