https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=406200 Complaints under section 276C(1) were held to be validly authorised where the sanction order under section 279(1) empowered the investigating income-tax to institute prosecution, and the departmental notification supported that authorisation. However, the Special Court could not take direct cognizance of such complaints under the statutory scheme, as the offences were treated as non-cognizable and required the prescribed procedure for trial. The prosecution was also found premature because wilful attempt to evade tax under section 276C(1) requires a prima facie basis showing chargeable liability or imposable tax, penalty or interest; unaccounted transactions alone were insufficient before quantification. en-us Mon, 05 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 02 Jul 2021 15:29:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=406200 Complaints under section 276C(1) were held to be validly authorised where the sanction order under section 279(1) empowered the investigating income-tax to institute prosecution, and the departmental notification supported that authorisation. However, the Special Court could not take direct cognizance of such complaints under the statutory scheme, as the offences were treated as non-cognizable and required the prescribed procedure for trial. The prosecution was also found premature because wilful attempt to evade tax under section 276C(1) requires a prima facie basis showing chargeable liability or imposable tax, penalty or interest; unaccounted transactions alone were insufficient before quantification. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 05 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=406200