Condonation of Delay: directoral disputes and pending company proceedings can constitute reasonable cause, allowing a belated return to be treated as ...
Revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 upheld; faceless assessments subject to revision when AO fails requisite enquiries, remitted for fresh asse...
Sections 223 to 228 of the BNSS were held applicable to PMLA complaints before the Special Court, because Sections 46 and 65 of the PMLA permit CrPC/BNSS procedure unless expressly excluded or inconsistent, and no such inconsistency was found. The Court held that an inquiry under the savings clause requires a judicial act applying mind, so merely filing or numbering a complaint does not save pre-BNSS procedure. The first proviso to Section 223(1) gives the accused a mandatory right to be heard before cognizance; taking cognizance after the BNSS commenced without that hearing was an illegality that vitiated the order. The impugned cognizance order was set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration after hearing the accused.
Sections 223 to 228 of the BNSS were held applicable to PMLA complaints before the Special Court, because Sections 46 and 65 of the PMLA permit CrPC/BNSS procedure unless expressly excluded or inconsistent, and no such inconsistency was found. The Court held that an inquiry under the savings clause requires a judicial act applying mind, so merely filing or numbering a complaint does not save pre-BNSS procedure. The first proviso to Section 223(1) gives the accused a mandatory right to be heard before cognizance; taking cognizance after the BNSS commenced without that hearing was an illegality that vitiated the order. The impugned cognizance order was set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration after hearing the accused.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
