LAWS(P&H)-1983-5-1

TELURAM RAUNQI RAM Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Decided On May 10, 1983
TELU RAM RAUNQI RAM Appellant
V/S
INCOME-TAX OFFICER, 'A' WARD Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a registered firm. It is an assessee under the I.T. Act, 1961. For the assessment year 1973-74, the petitioner-firm returned a certain sum as its income. THE ITO, while framing the assessment made considerable additions thereto. On appeal to the AAC, the amount was reduced. On cross-appeals to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, certain additions were again made. Thus, in the quantum proceedings, the matter came finally to rest. Simultaneously, the IAC passed an order of penalty against the petitioner-firm. THE petitioner's appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was dismissed. THE petitioner thereupon successfully sought a reference to the High Court, bearing I.T. Ref. No. 11 of 1981, which is pending. THE question posed therein is to the effect, whether the IAC was legally authorised to levy penalty. THE third step which the Department took is to obtain sanction from the Commissioner to prosecute the petitioner before, a criminal court under Section 277 of the I.T. Act. In the said complaint, charge having been framed against the petitioner-firm, it has approached this court to get quashed the same by invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 of the Cr. PC. It is being bemoaned that the present proceedings are in the nature of an abuse of the process of the court and in the interests of justice these be quashed.

(2.) MR.D.N. Awasthy, learned counsel for the petitioner-firm, has, in the first place, contended that the sanction accorded by the Commissioner is an unmindful sanction and as such the criminal complaint cannot proceed. From a bare perusal of the impugned order of the Magistrate, it seems that the question as such was never raised before him. The question of sanction, however, was raised in quite a different context before the learned Magistrate. Since I do not have the advantage of his view on the question as raised, I do not propose to touch the question raised. In the present proceedings I am not even inclined to permit MR. Awasthy to raise this question in the manner he has attempted to project it. The petitioner may, if so advised, raise it in a proper manner before the court dealing with the matter.