Court upholds jurisdiction, dismisses show-cause challenge. Petitioner exempted due to health reasons.

The court dismissed the petition challenging the absence of a show-cause notice before filing the complaint and the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi courts. It upheld that no show-cause notice was required under the law and that Delhi courts had jurisdiction over the property in question. The court also rejected the challenge against the summoning order and subsequent proceedings, emphasizing the extraordinary nature of invoking powers under the Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioner, a senior citizen, was temporarily exempted from personal appearance due to health reasons.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Absence of notice to show cause before filing the complaint.
2. Territorial jurisdiction of Delhi courts to entertain the complaint.
3. Legality of the summoning order and subsequent proceedings.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Absence of Notice to Show Cause:

The petitioner argued that the Department did not issue a notice to show cause before filing the complaint, which he claimed was his vested right. The court examined this contention and referred to the judgment in *General Sales P. Ltd. v. Gopal Mukherjee, ITO* [1987] 166 ITR 77 (Delhi), which held that the law does not mandate a show-cause notice before launching prosecution for violation of section 269UC of the Income-tax Act. The court also cited *Asst. Commissioner (Assessment) v. Velliappa Textiles Ltd.* [2003] 263 ITR 550 (SC), which stated that the authority sanctioning prosecution does not need to hold an inquiry to verify the truth of the allegations, as the accused will have the opportunity to defend themselves during the trial. Thus, the court turned down the plea regarding the absence of a show-cause notice.

2. Territorial Jurisdiction of Delhi Courts:

The petitioner contended that the Delhi courts lacked territorial jurisdiction since the property in question was situated in Faridabad. The court noted that the Department conducted enquiries in Delhi, and the petitioner himself admitted to signing Form 37-I, which was to be submitted to the Appropriate Authority in Delhi. The court referred to sections 177 and 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which allow for jurisdiction in cases where an offence is committed across multiple local areas. The court also cited *Satvinder Kaur v. State* [1999] 8 SCC 728, which established that if an offence is disclosed, the court will not normally interfere with an investigation. The court concluded that the notification under the Income-tax Act vested jurisdiction in the Appropriate Authority in Delhi for properties in both Delhi and Faridabad. Therefore, the argument regarding lack of territorial jurisdiction was rejected.

3. Legality of the Summoning Order and Subsequent Proceedings:

The petitioner challenged the summoning order issued by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and the subsequent dismissal of his application for discharge. The court observed that the petitioner had already approached the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge, both of whom had rejected his pleas. The court emphasized that its powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are extraordinary and should not be invoked lightly. The court found no miscarriage of justice or abuse of the process of the court to warrant interference.

The court also addressed the petitioner's argument that the objection regarding jurisdiction was not specifically dealt with by the lower courts. It clarified that if a petition is dismissed, it implies that all grounds raised were considered. The court found no illegality, infirmity, or arbitrariness in the impugned order dated May 22, 2004, and thus dismissed the petition.

Additional Observations:

The court noted that the petitioner, being a senior citizen aged 78 years, requested exemption from personal appearance before the trial court due to age-related ailments. The court directed that if an application for exemption is filed, it should be considered and disposed of in accordance with the law. Until then, the petitioner's appearance through counsel was exempted.

Conclusion:

The petition was dismissed, but the petitioner was allowed to raise all legal defenses, including lack of territorial jurisdiction and absence of show-cause notice, before the trial court. The court also provided temporary relief regarding the petitioner's personal appearance due to his age and health.

---