https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24143 Section 195 CrPC bars cognizance only where the complainant acts as a court within its meaning, so a complaint by the Income-tax Officer in his personal capacity was maintainable; the retrospective amendment to section 136 of the Income-tax Act was treated as procedural and therefore capable of retrospective operation. Partners who did not file the return or make the impugned statements could not be proceeded against merely because they signed the bank account opening form, as that did not establish responsibility for the false return or statements. Setting aside the reassessment order did not automatically extinguish the criminal complaint, although immediate trial was considered inappropriate while the tax dispute remained unresolved. en-us Mon, 26 Sep 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 18 Jan 2010 10:17:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24143 Section 195 CrPC bars cognizance only where the complainant acts as a court within its meaning, so a complaint by the Income-tax Officer in his personal capacity was maintainable; the retrospective amendment to section 136 of the Income-tax Act was treated as procedural and therefore capable of retrospective operation. Partners who did not file the return or make the impugned statements could not be proceeded against merely because they signed the bank account opening form, as that did not establish responsibility for the false return or statements. Setting aside the reassessment order did not automatically extinguish the criminal complaint, although immediate trial was considered inappropriate while the tax dispute remained unresolved. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 26 Sep 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24143