https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426220 The HC held that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC could be entertained despite an available revision under Section 397 CrPC, because repeated identical proceedings and a manifest legal error would otherwise cause avoidable multiplicity. It further held that cognizance for income-tax evasion could not stand where the complaint and departmental notice alleged only belated filing of the return under Section 276-CC(ii) of the Income-tax Act, and the trial court had misread the complaint as alleging evasion. The cognizance order was quashed, while the question of prosecution sanction was left open for challenge in accordance with law. en-us Thu, 04 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 10 Aug 2022 09:29:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426220 The HC held that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC could be entertained despite an available revision under Section 397 CrPC, because repeated identical proceedings and a manifest legal error would otherwise cause avoidable multiplicity. It further held that cognizance for income-tax evasion could not stand where the complaint and departmental notice alleged only belated filing of the return under Section 276-CC(ii) of the Income-tax Act, and the trial court had misread the complaint as alleging evasion. The cognizance order was quashed, while the question of prosecution sanction was left open for challenge in accordance with law. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 04 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426220