TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether proceedings before an Income-tax Officer under section 37(4) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, are proceedings in a court within the meaning of section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, so that a private complaint for offences under section 193 of the Indian Penal Code is barred without a complaint by the Income-tax Officer.
Analysis: Section 37(4) deems proceedings before the income-tax authorities to be judicial proceedings within the meaning of sections 193 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code. The majority held that this deeming provision, read in the setting of the statutory scheme and the need to avoid an anomaly under section 195(1)(b), shows that such proceedings must be treated as proceedings in a court for the limited purpose of the bar on cognizance. The fact that the provision does not expressly mention section 195 was not regarded as decisive, because the legislative object would otherwise be defeated and the safeguard attached to offences committed in judicial proceedings would be lost. The separate opinion held that the Income-tax Officer is not a court and that section 37(4) does not extend section 195.
Conclusion: The proceedings before the Income-tax Officer were held to attract section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the private complaint was not maintainable without a complaint by the Income-tax Officer.
Final Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed and the order refusing to entertain the complaint was left undisturbed.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute deems proceedings before an authority to be judicial proceedings for the purposes of sections 193 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code, and the legislative scheme so requires, those proceedings are to be treated as proceedings in a court for the limited purpose of the bar under section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
