Petitioner's Conviction Upheld for False Tax Claims

The court upheld the petitioner's conviction under sections 276C and 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for false exemption claims. The court dismissed claims of improper sanction for the complaint and discrimination, emphasizing equality before the law. The revision was rejected, directing the respondent to review any relief application within 90 days. A separate writ petition by the petitioner was pending, with instructions for compliance after its finality.

---

---

Issues Involved:
- Conviction under sections 276C and 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961
- Sanction for filing the complaint
- Allegations of privilege and discrimination in prosecution by the Income-tax Department

Analysis:
1. Conviction under sections 276C and 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The petitioner was convicted under sections 276C and 277 of the Income-tax Act based on a complaint filed by the respondent. The petitioner claimed exemption under the head of interest on house building advance in his tax returns, which was deemed false. The trial court convicted the petitioner, and the appellate court upheld the conviction. The revision was filed to set aside these orders.

2. Sanction for filing the complaint:
The petitioner's counsel argued that the complaint was lodged without proper approval, alleging discrimination by the respondent in targeting salaried individuals like the petitioner while ignoring high-income earners. However, the court found that the complaint was filed after obtaining proper sanction, dismissing the contention of lack of approval as baseless.

3. Allegations of privilege and discrimination in prosecution:
The petitioner's counsel raised concerns about the Income-tax Department showing favoritism towards certain taxpayers. The court referenced a previous judgment where a similar case led to conviction, emphasizing equality before the law. The court rejected the argument of privilege and discrimination, stating that all individuals are treated equally under the law.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the revision, finding no merit in the petitioner's arguments. The respondent was directed to consider any application for relief within 90 days. The petitioner had also filed a separate writ petition challenging the respondent's order, which was pending. The court instructed the respondent to comply with the court's order after finality in the writ petition. The criminal revision case was disposed of with these observations.

---