TMI Blog1967 (11) TMI 32X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by SHELAT J.--Between June 16, 1962, and May 4, 1964, respondent No. 1 was the Income-tax Officer for Additional B-XVIII District, New Delhi. The appellants have, at all material times, been carrying on business in partnership in the name of M/s. Balwant Singh Santok Singh within the said Additional B-VIII (Income-tax) District. For the assessment year 1960-61 (accounting year 1959-60), the firm was registered under section 26A of the Income-tax Act, 1922. During the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1961-62 (accounting year 1960-61), respondent No.1 noticed that the firm had not applied for renewal of registration. The firm was, therefore, liable to be assessed as an unregistered firm. At that stage, appellant No. 1, Balwant Singh, represented to respondent No.1 that the firm had filed an application for renewal for the assessment year 1961-62 within the prescribed period, and, therefore, its registration should be renewed. Respondent No.1 adjourned the case to May 27, 1963, and called upon appellant No. 1 to produce evidence to show that such an application was made. On May 27, 1963, appellant No.1 appeard befor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before the High Court and the same were canvassed by Mr. Gupte before us. These were : (1) that the Income-tax Officer while acting under section 26A of the Income-tax Act, 1922, was a court and that that being so, it was incumbent on him to follow the procedure laid down in 476 and 479A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, before he could file a complaint for offences under sections 193 and 196 of the Penal and (2) that in any event, respondent No. 1 had ceased to hold the charge of the post of income-tax Officer for Additional B-XVIII District, on the of the filing of the said complaint and, therefore, the complaint was without jurisdiction and the Magistrate could not take cognizance of such an illegal complaint. Before we proceed further, it is necessary to read the relevant provisions of the Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Sections 193 and 196 of the Penal Code provide for punishment for intentionally giving false evidence in a judicial proceeding or for fabricating false evidence for the purpose of being used in such judicial proceeding and for using or attempting to use as true or genuine any evidence which an accused knows to be false or fabricated. Section 195(1)( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vidence in any stage of the judicial proceeding or has intentionally fabricated false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of the judicial proceeding, and that, for the eradication of the evils of perjury and fabrication of false evidence and in the interests of justice, it is expedient that such a witness should be prosecuted for the offence which appears to have been committed by him, the court shall at the time of the delivery of the judgment: or final order disposing of such proceeding, record a finding to that effect stating its reasons therefore and may, if it thinks so fit, after giving the witness an opportunity of being heard, make a complaint thereof in writing signed by the presiding officer of the court. Sub-section (6) provides that no proceeding shall be taken under sections 476 to 479 inclusive for the prosecution of a person for giving or fabricating false evidence if in relation to such a person proceedings may be taken under this section. The question, therefore, is : whether section 476, or section 479 A of the Code applies to the instant complaint. It will be observed that whereas section 195 uses the expression " court " sections 476 and 479A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns 193, 196 and 228 of the Penal Code. Section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, inter alia, provides that the Income-tax Officer shall, for the Purpose of the Act, have the same powers as are vested in a court under the Code of Civil Procedure when trying a suit in respect of discovery and inspection and enforcing the attendance of any person, including any officer of a banking company and examining him on oath, etc. Sub-section (4) provides that any proceeding before an Income-tax Officer shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of sections 193 and 228 and for the purposes of section 196 of the Penal Code. In view of these provisions, the majority view was that proceedings before the Income-tax Officer are judicial proceedings for the purposes of sections 193, 196 and 228 of the Penal Code and though the Court did not go into the general question whether the officer is a court or not held that those proceedings must be treated as proceedings in a court for the purposes of section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They, therefore, held that the condition precedent prescribed by those provisions had not been complied with as a complaint in that case w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
