TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (4) TMI 760
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... petitioner in C.C.No.219/2014 pending on the file of the Court of JMFC III Court, Belgaum, for the offence punishable under Section 276CC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for brevity). 2. The background facts of the above matter are that on 29.03.2014, the respondent Income Tax Department represented by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax had filed a complaint under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C., for brevity) against the petitioner alleging the commission of offences punishable under Section 276CC of Act, as regards non-filing of Income Tax returns in terms of Sections 139(1), 142(1) or 153 of Act, which provides for matters relating to filing of return of income. 3. It is alleged that the petitioner was a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ali, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the sanctioning authority in terms of Section 279 for the offence as alleged against the petitioner is the Commissioner of Income Tax. Therefore, there was no need for the Commissioner to take permission or approval from the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Panaji, as stated in paragraph No.9 of the sanction order dated 12.03.2014. He would contend that; (i) There is no methodology prescribed or available under Section 279 or any other provision of the Act, to seek for approval from the superior authority before issuing an order of sanction. (ii) The prescribed authority under Section 279 of the Act, has to satisfy itself before sanctioning the prosecution an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t on 26.02.2014, the Commissioner of Income Tax wrote to the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax placing all the facts, the opinion received from the standing counsel and the re-commendation of the Commissioner of Income Tax, that it was a fit case to file prosecution under Section 276 CC of the Act. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax had further sought for accord of approval for launching prosecution under Section 276CC of the Act at the earliest. Paragraph No.9 of the said letter dated 26.02.2014 is hereunder reproduced for easy reference. "(9). In view of the above, it is submitted that it is a fit case to file prosecution under Section 276CC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, it is requested to kindly accord approval in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uld indicate that the contents of both except for paragraph No.9 are identical on that basis thereof he submits that there is no influence exerted by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax or Commissioner of Income Tax for initiating prosecution and or that the Commissioner of Income Tax has not been influenced by the order of the approval passed by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. He relies on the following judgments in support of his above contentions. (1) J. Jayalalitha Vs Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax 290 ITR 055 (Mad) at paragraph No.29. (2) Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Others Vs Velliappa Textiles Ltd and Others 263 ITR 0550 (SC) at paragraph No.8. 14. Heard learned counsel for both the parties a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e dependent on the approval of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax in that only if the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax accorded approval for prosecution than the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Income Tax could be considered and acted upon by sanctioning prosecution. However, if the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax were to refuse permission then the Commissioner of Income Tax though satisfied could not initiate any proceedings due to the non approval by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. 18. In view of the same, the contention of Sri Kiran Javali, that the prosecution has been initiated and sanction order came to be passed on 12.03.2014 being influenced by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, though may not be entirely correct ....