False verification in tax returns can trigger prosecution against a company's principal officer, with no bar absent penalty waiver.

Section 279(1A) bars prosecution under section 277 of the Income-tax Act only where the Commissioner has already reduced or waived the minimum penalty under section 271(4A); absent such an order, prosecution may proceed on an authorised complaint. The term "person" in section 277 can extend to the managing director or principal officer who signs and verifies the company's return, so liability is not confined to the company alone. Proceedings before income-tax authorities are judicial proceedings for section 193 IPC purposes, and offences under the Penal Code may be pursued on the basis of the Commissioner's authorisation without any further sanction on these facts.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether prosecution under section 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be maintained against the managing director of a company before any order reducing or waiving penalty under section 271(4A); (ii) whether the expression "person" in section 277 included the managing director who signed the return as principal officer; and (iii) whether prosecution under section 120B read with section 193 of the Indian Penal Code could proceed without a further sanction beyond the Commissioner's authorisation under the Income-tax Act.

Issue (i): whether prosecution under section 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be maintained against the managing director of a company before any order reducing or waiving penalty under section 271(4A).

Analysis: Section 279(1A) bars prosecution under section 277 only where the Commissioner has exercised the discretion under section 271(4A) to reduce or waive the minimum penalty. On the facts, no such order had been passed. The Commissioner had instead authorised prosecution on the footing that a false verification had been wilfully made and false statements had been knowingly delivered. The protection under section 279(1A) therefore did not arise at the threshold, and any factual challenge to the allegation could be considered only after evidence.

Conclusion: The prosecution was not premature on this ground and the contention failed against the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether the expression "person" in section 277 included the managing director who signed the return as principal officer.

Analysis: The statutory duty under section 140(c) to sign and verify the company's return rested on the principal officer. The managing director had signed the verification in that capacity. The word "person" in the penal provisions was not confined to the assessee-company alone; in context it covered the individual who made the false verification or was responsible for the prohibited act. The company's status as assessee and the later insertion of a specific provision for company offences did not exclude liability of the managing director for the period in question.

Conclusion: The managing director was liable to be proceeded against under section 277 and the objection to maintainability failed.

Issue (iii): whether prosecution under section 120B read with section 193 of the Indian Penal Code could proceed without a further sanction beyond the Commissioner's authorisation under the Income-tax Act.

Analysis: Proceedings before the income-tax authority were judicial proceedings within the meaning of section 193 of the Indian Penal Code by virtue of section 136 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The complaint was instituted on the basis of the Commissioner's authorisation and the allegations disclosed offences under both the special statute and the Penal Code. The two enactments were held to be capable of standing together, and no statutory requirement barred cognizance of the Penal Code offences on these facts.

Conclusion: The prosecution under the Penal Code was maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The revision and the quashing petition were rejected, and the criminal complaint was allowed to proceed before the Magistrate.

Ratio Decidendi: For offences under section 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the term "person" may include the principal officer who actually makes the false verification on behalf of a company, and the bar under section 279(1A) operates only where the Commissioner has already exercised the statutory power to reduce or waive penalty under section 271(4A). In the absence of such an order, and where the complaint is duly authorised, prosecution is maintainable.

---