TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Commissioner of Income Tax to Independently Decide Prosecution Matters</h1> <h3>Liz Batra Versus Central Board of Direct Taxes through its Chairman and another</h3> Liz Batra Versus Central Board of Direct Taxes through its Chairman and another - TMI Issues:1. Writ petition seeking to quash a show-cause notice under sections 276C(1)/277 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for initiating prosecution proceedings.Analysis:The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash a show-cause notice dated 09.02.2015 under sections 276C(1)/277 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for initiating prosecution proceedings in respect of the assessment year 2011-12. The petitioner argued that the Commissioner of Income Tax-I is the competent authority to decide on prosecution matters. However, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has been issuing directions compelling the Commissioner to launch prosecutions. The petitioner contended that CBDT is not the appropriate authority to issue such directions.The court analyzed Section 279 of the Act, which mandates that a person cannot be proceeded against for certain offenses without the previous sanction of the Commissioner or appropriate authority, or if directed by the Chief Commissioner or Director General. The court clarified that CBDT is not the appropriate authority to issue such directions. The court noted the petitioner's concerns regarding correspondence between CBDT and authorities, but found that the letters did not constitute mandatory orders to launch prosecution.The court directed respondent No.2, the Commissioner of Income Tax, to independently decide on taking action under section 279 without being influenced by directions from CBDT or any other source. The court emphasized that launching prosecution is not mandatory in every case of failure under the Act. If respondent No.2 decides to proceed with prosecution, it must be supported by a reasoned order addressing all issues raised by the petitioner. Additionally, any adverse decision must not be implemented for four weeks after being served upon the petitioner.In conclusion, the court disposed of the writ petition with the specified terms, emphasizing the need for independent decision-making by the Commissioner of Income Tax and ensuring due process in case of prosecution proceedings.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
