Complaint under section 279 remains valid when instituted at the Commissioner's instance; title irregularities do not vitiate prosecution.

A complaint for offence under section 276B was treated as valid where the Commissioner had directed the Income-tax Officer to file it, because section 279 requires prosecution to be launched at the Commissioner's instance and the substance of the authorisation, not its form, was ative. The use of the Union of India in the complaint title was held to be an inconsequential irregularity that did not change the real character of the prosecution. The court noted that authority could also be supported by evidence at trial if required, and the challenge to the prosecution therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complaint for offence under section 276B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was validly instituted at the instance of the Commissioner under section 279, and whether the use of the Union of India in the title of the complaint vitiated the prosecution.

Analysis: Section 279 requires that prosecution for the specified offences be launched only at the instance of the Commissioner. The order of the Commissioner directing the Income-tax Officer to file the complaint was treated, in substance, as a complaint at the Commissioner's instance. The form of the authorisation was not decisive, and the prosecution was not shown to suffer from an absolute want of authority. The title describing the Union of India did not alter the real character of the complaint and was held to be an inconsequential irregularity. The Court also noted that validity of the authority could be supported by evidence at trial if necessary.

Conclusion: The objection to the prosecution failed, and the revision petition was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A complaint under section 279 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is valid if, on a substantive reading, it is instituted at the instance of the Commissioner, and a mere irregularity in form or title does not invalidate the prosecution.

---