DWIGENDRA NARAIN BAGCHI Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Rule calling upon the District Magistrate of Nadia to show cause why the proceedings instituted against the petitioner under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1922, should not be quashed on the ground that the said proceedings had not been instituted under proper sanction, as the District Magistrate and Collector is not the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax in respect of assessment of incomes exceeding Rs. 20,000 and, secondly, why the order of the Trying Magistrate dated the 28 February 1923 revoking the concession of appearing by a Pleader under Section 205 of the Criminal P. C. should not be set aside.

(2.) As regards the first ground, Mr. Dasarathi Sanyal, who appears on behalf of the petitioners, states that he does not wish to press the same. The Rule will, therefore stand discharged so far as the first ground is concerned.

(3.) As regards the second ground, the facts are as follows:--The petitioner before us was served with a notice on the 12 December 1922, by the Sub-Divisional Officer of Meherpur, in his capacity as an Income Tax Officer, requiring the petitioner to submit a return of his income within seven days. The petitioner, it appears, thereupon raised a question as to whether his separate income should or should not be included in the total income of the undivided joint Hindu family of which he was a member. Certain correspondence ensued between the petitioner and the said Sub-Divisional Officer in his capacity as an Income Tax Officer and, eventually, on the 11 February 1923, the Sub-Divisional Officer applied to the District Magistrate in the latter's capacity as an Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax for sanction to prosecute the petitioner under Section 51 (e) of the Income Tax Act, for having failed without reasonable cause or excuse to furnish in due time a return which had been called for from him under Section 22 of the Act.