https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=29616 Proceedings instituted before the new Code continued under the old Code because cognizance had already been taken, but a later request for adjournment to seek transfer did not create any mandatory duty to stay the case. The court's refusal to grant time was discretionary and did not make the discharge order without jurisdiction. On the charge under section 277 of the Income-tax Act, the prosecution had to show both a false statement and knowledge or belief of falsity. As the materials suggested prior disclosure and possible inadvertence rather than deliberate concealment, no prima facie case for framing charge was made out, and the discharge was restored. en-us Fri, 04 Mar 1977 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 15 Mar 2010 11:30:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=29616 Proceedings instituted before the new Code continued under the old Code because cognizance had already been taken, but a later request for adjournment to seek transfer did not create any mandatory duty to stay the case. The court's refusal to grant time was discretionary and did not make the discharge order without jurisdiction. On the charge under section 277 of the Income-tax Act, the prosecution had to show both a false statement and knowledge or belief of falsity. As the materials suggested prior disclosure and possible inadvertence rather than deliberate concealment, no prima facie case for framing charge was made out, and the discharge was restored. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 04 Mar 1977 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=29616