Skip to content


Vijay Kumar Vs. Income-tax Officer - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Miscellaneous No. 4629M of 1984
Judge
Reported in(1984)40CTR(P& H)87; [1984]150ITR126(P& H)
ActsIncome Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 273A, 276C, 277 and 279(1A)
AppellantVijay Kumar
Respondentincome-tax Officer
Appellant Advocate Ashok Aggarwal, Adv.
Respondent Advocate Ashok Bhan and; A.K. Mittal, Advs.
Excerpt:
- sections 80 (2) & 89 & punjab motor vehicles rules, 1989, rules 85 & 80: [t.s. thakur, cj, jasbir singh & surya kant, jj] appeal against orders of state or regional transport authority imitation held, a stipulation regarding the period of limitation available for invoking the remedy shall have to be strictly construed. that is because any provision by way of limitation is in the nature of a restraint on the remedy provided under the act. so viewed two inferences are clear viz., (1) sections 80 and 89 of the act read with rule 85 of the rules make it obligatory for the authorities making the order to communicate it to the applicant concerned and (2) the period of limitation for any appeal against the order is reckonable from the date of such communication of the reasons would imply..........court for dropping the criminal proceedings against him which prayer has been declined by the chief judicial magistrate, vide order dated august 18, 1983, (p-2). the petitioner has moved the present petition under section 482, criminal procedure code, praying that the complaint made against him by the ito as also the criminal proceedings pending in the court of chief judicial magistrate, ludhiana, be quashed. 2. section 279(1a) of the act reads :'a person shall not be proceeded against for an offence under section 276c or section 277 in relation to the assessment for an assessment year in respect of which the penalty imposed or imposable on him under clause (iii) of sub-section (1) of section 271 has been reduced or waived by an order under section 273a.'3. the learned counsel for.....
Judgment:

Tandon, J.

1. Vijay Kumar, the petitioner, is being prosecuted under Sections 276C and 277 of the I.T. Act (hereafter 'the Act'), and Section 193/196, Indian Penal Code, in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, on a complaint dated March 29, 1982, (P-1), filed by the ITO, Special Survey Circle-1, Ludhiana. The petitioner moved the trial court for dropping the criminal proceedings against him which prayer has been declined by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, vide order dated August 18, 1983, (P-2). The petitioner has moved the present petition under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, praying that the complaint made against him by the ITO as also the criminal proceedings pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, be quashed.

2. Section 279(1A) of the Act reads :

'A person shall not be proceeded against for an offence under Section 276C or Section 277 in relation to the assessment for an assessment year in respect of which the penalty imposed or imposable on him under Clause (iii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 271 has been reduced or waived by an order under Section 273A.'

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in the absence of an order against the petitioner under Section 273A, he cannot be prosecuted under Section 276C or Section 277 of the Act. The contention is without merit. It is admitted that no proceedings under Section 273A of the Act have so far been initiated. There should be no legal bar for the prosecution of the petitioner under Section 276C or Section 277 of the Act in the absence of a favourable decision for him under Section 273A of the Act. Dismissed in limine.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //