R. Mathivanan Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax

R. Mathivanan;r. Mathialagan;r. Mathiarasan vs Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax;assistant Commissioner of Income-tax;assistant Commissioner of

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Mar 21, 1995

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/791344

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/791344
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: C. Shivappa, J.
Decided On: Mar 21, 1995
Case Number: Criminal Original Petitions Nos. 11615, 11732 to 11745 of 1993 and Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions
Subject: Direct Taxation

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- - 4. The order of sanction is a matter to be looked into during trial, and it can be proved at that time like any other evidence and the petitioners can raise such contention touching sanction at the appropriate stage.

Key legal issue: Direct Taxation
Acts & sections: Income tax Act, 1961 - Sections 276(C) and (C(1)) and 277

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

R. Mathivanan;r. Mathialagan;r. Mathiarasan

Advocate M. Sathyanarayanan, Adv.

Respondent

Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax;assistant Commissioner of Income-tax;assistant Commissioner of

Advocate Ramaswamy K., Special Public Prosecutor

Legal References

Acts: Income tax Act, 1961 - Sections 276(C) and (C(1)) and 277
Cases Referred: V. Gopal v. Asst.
Reported In: [1996]220ITR351(Mad)

Excerpt

- - 4. the order of sanction is a matter to be looked into during trial, and it can be proved at that time like any other evidence and the petitioners can raise such contention touching sanction at the appropriate stage.shivappa, j.1. the petitioners in these petitions are seeking for quashing of the proceedings launched against them under sections 276c(1)(i) and 277 of the income-tax act, 1961, on the ground that they had attempted to evade the tax and also made false verification in the return filed for the assessment years. 2. the contentions are that there was no proposal from the assessing authority for according sanction for prosecution by the commissioner and even if there is a sanction, the same is not in accordance with law and there is no application of mind. 3. this court in v. gopal v. asst. cit : [1994]207itr971(mad) has held that sanction by the commissioner must be only on a proposal submitted to him is not tenable. it has been further held that there is no requirement that such a sanction can be given only on the initiation of proposal by some other agency. therefore, there is no merit in the contention urged by learned counsel for the petitioners. 4. the order of sanction is a matter to be looked into during trial, and it can be proved at that time like any other evidence and the petitioners can raise such contention touching sanction at the appropriate stage. there is no ground to quash the proceedings in all these petitions. petitions are dismissed. 5. in view of the above order, criminal miscellaneous petitions nos. 7363, 7364, 7462, 7463, 7464, 7465, 7466, 7467, 7468, 7469, 7470, 7471, 7472, 7473, 7474, 7475, 7476, 7477, 7478, 7479, 7480, 7481, 7482, 7483, 7484, 7486, 7487, 7488 and 7489 of 1993 are also dismissed as unnecessary.

Full Judgment

Shivappa, J.

1. The petitioners in these petitions are seeking for quashing of the proceedings launched against them under sections 276C(1)(i) and 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the ground that they had attempted to evade the tax and also made false verification in the return filed for the assessment years.

2. The contentions are that there was no proposal from the assessing authority for according sanction for prosecution by the Commissioner and even if there is a sanction, the same is not in accordance with law and there is no application of mind.

3. This court in V. Gopal v. Asst. CIT : [1994]207ITR971(Mad) has held that sanction by the Commissioner must be only on a proposal submitted to him is not tenable. It has been further held that there is no requirement that such a sanction can be given only on the initiation of proposal by some other agency. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention urged by learned counsel for the petitioners.

4. The order of sanction is a matter to be looked into during trial, and it can be proved at that time like any other evidence and the petitioners can raise such contention touching sanction at the appropriate stage. There is no ground to quash the proceedings in all these petitions. Petitions are dismissed.

5. In view of the above order, Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 7363, 7364, 7462, 7463, 7464, 7465, 7466, 7467, 7468, 7469, 7470, 7471, 7472, 7473, 7474, 7475, 7476, 7477, 7478, 7479, 7480, 7481, 7482, 7483, 7484, 7486, 7487, 7488 and 7489 of 1993 are also dismissed as unnecessary.

Same Court & Year Chennai · 1995 Same Parties R. Mathivanan;r. Mathialagan;r. Mathiarasan vs Assistant Comm... Same Subject Direct Taxation Same Judge C. Shivappa, J. Acts & Sections Income tax Act, 1961 - Sections 276(C) and (C(1)) and 277

Direct Taxation