Income Tax Officer not treated as a Court for criminal procedure complaint requirement under Section 195

An Income Tax Officer is not a Court for Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, because powers to summon witnesses, administer oaths, compel documents, or issue commissions do not by themselves confer judicial status. His function under the Income Tax Act is to ascertain taxable income and determine tax payable, which is administrative rather than judicial. The fact that proceedings may affect civil rights, or are deemed judicial proceedings for limited statutory purposes under the Income Tax Act, does not make the assessing officer a Court for Section 195. No complaint by the officer was therefore necessary, and the preliminary objection failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether an Income Tax Officer is a Court for the purposes of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, so as to make a complaint by him a condition precedent for cognizance of offences alleged to have been committed in proceedings before him.

Analysis: The definition of "Court" in Section 195 is not to be extended merely because the Income Tax Officer can summon witnesses, administer oaths, compel production of documents, or issue commissions. Those powers, by themselves, do not convert an officer into a Court. The nature of his functions under the Income Tax Act is to ascertain taxable income and determine the tax payable, which is an administrative function and not a judicial one. The presence of an appeal, the capacity to decide matters affecting civil rights, or the statutory deeming of proceedings as judicial proceedings for limited purposes under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1922, does not make the assessing officer a Court for Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The proceedings before him are judicial only to the extent expressly provided by that section of the Income Tax Act, and not generally.

Conclusion: An Income Tax Officer is not a Court within Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and no complaint by him was necessary. The preliminary objection failed.

---