https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38367 A complaint for an offence under section 277 was held valid where the Commissioner had authorised proceedings under section 279(1), because the statutory requirement of action at the Commissioner's instance was satisfied. Section 279(1A) did not bar prosecution merely because the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal had set aside a penalty under section 271(1)(c); the bar was confined to reduction or waiver by an order under section 271(4A), and an appellate setting aside was not equivalent to such waiver. Quashing in inherent jurisdiction was also declined, since no charge had been framed and no evidence had been led, and the Tribunal's findings could only operate as evidence at a later stage. en-us Wed, 17 Dec 1975 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 05 Apr 2010 17:36:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38367 A complaint for an offence under section 277 was held valid where the Commissioner had authorised proceedings under section 279(1), because the statutory requirement of action at the Commissioner's instance was satisfied. Section 279(1A) did not bar prosecution merely because the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal had set aside a penalty under section 271(1)(c); the bar was confined to reduction or waiver by an order under section 271(4A), and an appellate setting aside was not equivalent to such waiver. Quashing in inherent jurisdiction was also declined, since no charge had been framed and no evidence had been led, and the Tribunal's findings could only operate as evidence at a later stage. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 17 Dec 1975 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38367