https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24882 A complaint for offence under section 276B was treated as valid where the Commissioner had directed the Income-tax Officer to file it, because section 279 requires prosecution to be launched at the Commissioner's instance and the substance of the authorisation, not its form, was ative. The use of the Union of India in the complaint title was held to be an inconsequential irregularity that did not change the real character of the prosecution. The court noted that authority could also be supported by evidence at trial if required, and the challenge to the prosecution therefore failed. en-us Mon, 07 Dec 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 23 Jan 2010 10:19:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24882 A complaint for offence under section 276B was treated as valid where the Commissioner had directed the Income-tax Officer to file it, because section 279 requires prosecution to be launched at the Commissioner's instance and the substance of the authorisation, not its form, was ative. The use of the Union of India in the complaint title was held to be an inconsequential irregularity that did not change the real character of the prosecution. The court noted that authority could also be supported by evidence at trial if required, and the challenge to the prosecution therefore failed. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 07 Dec 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24882