Incomplete sanction material can vitiate prosecution where later replies and supporting documents were not considered before summoning.

A prosecution under the Income-tax Act for alleged wilful failure to furnish details was found vulnerable because the sanctioning authority and the Magistrate did not consider the petitioner's later replies and the bank statement said to have been furnished before the complaint was pursued. The Delhi HC noted that the sanction and pre-summoning material did not disclose consideration of those documents, leaving the record incomplete at the stage of initiation. On that basis, the summoning order was liable to be quashed, while the department was left free to obtain fresh sanction after considering the subsequent replies and proceed according to law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the summoning order and criminal complaint for alleged wilful failure to furnish details in response to notices under the Income-tax Act were liable to be quashed because the sanctioning authority and the Magistrate did not consider the petitioner's replies dated 9 February 2015 and 11 February 2015, along with the bank statement furnished by the petitioner.

Analysis: The petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenged the sanction for prosecution and the summoning order passed in the complaint under Section 276D of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The material placed before the Court showed that the petitioner had sent further replies before the complaint was pursued, asserting that the bank statement for the foreign account had been obtained and furnished. The sanctioning order did not refer to these replies or the enclosed statement, and the complaint and pre-summoning material also did not disclose that these documents had been received or considered. The Court held that, in these circumstances, the record before the sanctioning authority and the trial court was incomplete when the impugned summoning order was passed, making the order vulnerable on technical grounds.

Conclusion: The summoning order was liable to be quashed. The petition was allowed, while leaving the department at liberty to issue fresh sanction after considering the petitioner's later replies and to proceed in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The prosecution could not be sustained on the basis of the incomplete material considered at the stage of sanction and summoning, but further action was left open after due consideration of the petitioner's subsequent disclosures.

Ratio Decidendi: A prosecution sanction and summoning order are unsustainable where material replies and documents bearing on the alleged default are not considered before initiation of criminal proceedings.

---