T. S. Baliah vs T. S. Rangachari, Income Tax Officer, Central Circle Vi, Madras

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1968 Supreme(SC) 378

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI AND A.N. GROVER, JJ.
T. S. Baliah (In all the Appeals), Appellant
Versus
T. S. Rangachari, Income Tax Officer, Central Circle VI, Madras (In all the Appeals), Respondent.
Criminal Appeals Nos. 130 to 133 of 1968, D/- 12-12-1968.
Advocates appeared
Mr. M. K. Ramamurthi, Senior Advocate, (Mrs. Shyamla Pappu, M/s. P. S. Khera and Vineet Kumar, Advocates, with him), for Appellant (In all the Appeals); Mr. B. Sen, Senior Advocate (M/s. T. A. Ramachandran and R. N. Sachthey, Advocates, with him), for Respondent (In all the Appeals).

Advocates:
B.SEN, M.K.RAMAMURTHY, P.S.KHERA, R.N.SACH, SHYAMALA PAPPU, T.A.Ramachandran, VINIT KUMAR

Headnote:
Income Tax Act, 1922 - Section 28, 28 (4), 51, 52 , 19A , 20A , 21 , 22 , 26A (2) , 30 (3) , 33 (3) , 18 (9) , 53 (1) , (2) , - Indian Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 277, 297 (1), (2) (a) to (m), 197 (2), 297 (2) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 177 - Poor Relief Act, 1691 – Section 10- Poor Relief Act, 1662 - Metropolitan Police Act, 1839 - Metropolitan Police Act, 1864 - General Clauses Act, 1977 - Section 6 - Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 14 - Assessment Years - Income-Tax Returns - Penalties Were Imposed - Whether by reason of repeal of 1922 Act by 1961 Act, prosecutions in respect of prior proceedings under 1922 Act were not saved and therefore prosecution under Section 52 of 1922 Act was not sustainable - Whether they indicate a different intention - Whether new Act expressly keeps alive old rights and liabilities but whether it manifests an intention to destroy them - Whether appellant can be prosecuted both under Section 177, Indian Penal Code and Section 52 of 1922 Act at same time – Held, It was contended on behalf of appellant that prosecution is illegal as complaint petition was required to be filed by Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under 1922 Act, In Court opinion, there is no substance in this argument - Section 53 of 1922 Act only requires that a person shall not be proceeded against for an offence under Section 51 or Section 52 of 1922 Act "except at instance of Inspecting Assistant Commissioner - It is not disputed in present case that respondent has filed complaint petitions on authority of Inspecting Assistant commissioner - It was also said in course of argument that it was open to Income Tax Officer to prosecute appellant either under Section 177, Indian Penal Code or under Section 52 of 1922 Act and choice of prosecution was left to arbitrary and unguided discretion of Income Tax Officer and therefore there was a violation of guarantee under Art. 14 of Constitution – Court do not consider there is any substance in this argument - Offence provided for in Section 52 of 1922 Act is an offence specially constituted and prosecution for that offence requires sanction of Inspecting Assistant Commissioner - No prosecution also can take place if penalty has been imposed under Section 28 of 1922 Act - Institution of a complaint under Sec. 52 of 1922 Act is therefore circumscribed by sufficient safeguards and Court do not consider that there is any violation of guarantee under Article 14 of Constitution - It was pointed out that penalties have been already imposed on appellant in respect of first three assessment years and that there can therefore be no prosecution of appellant under Section 52 of 1922 Act - Reference was made to Section 28 (4) of 1922 Act which states that "no prosecution for an offence against this Act shall be instituted in respect of same facts on which a penalty has been imposed under this section - There is however no sufficient material before Court to determine this point – Court therefore consider that point should be left open and appellant may urge argument before trying Magistrate at time of commencement of trial - Appeal dismissed.

Judgment

RAMASWAMI, J.: The appellant is a cinema actor and the present proceedings have arisen in respect of the Income-tax Returns filed by him for the assessment years 1958-59, 1959-60, 1960-61and 1961-62. In respect of the first three assessment years the appellant was assessed to income-tax. Thereafter penalty proceedings had been instituted under Section 28 of the Income Tax Act, 1922, hereinafter called the 1922 Act and penalties were imposed. In respect of the last assessment year, notice has been issued to the appellant asking him to show cause why the penalty should not be imposed. The respondent filed four complaint petitions at the instance of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, Central Range, Madras in respect of the first three assessment years and at the instance of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras Central in respect of the fourth assessment year before the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Egmore, Madras charging the appellant with having committed offences under Section 52 of the 1922 Act and under Section 177, Indian Penal Code in the first three complaints and under Section 277 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, hereinafter called the 1961 Act and under Section 177, Indian Penal Code in the fourth complaint petition. In substance the allegation of the first respondent was that the appellant had made a statement in the verification under the Income Tax Act which was false knowing it to be false, and he had wilfully omitted and deliberately suppressed the inclusion of certain sums of money in his Income Tax Returns with a view to evade lawful taxes due to the Government. The appellant filed four applications before the Chief Presidency Magistrate praying that the legality of the trial for both the offences should be tried as the preliminary issue. This application was dismissed by the Chief Presidency Magistrate by a common order dated May 22, 1967, holding that the points of law raised by the appellant were such that they could be agitated in the course of the trial and therefore it was not necessary to give any finding on those points at that stage. Thereafter the appellant filed Criminal revision petitions in the Madras High Court against the orders of the Chief Presidency Magistrate. These petitions were dismissed by the Madras High Court by its order dated February 14, 1968.

2. These appeals have been brought by special leave from the order of the Madras High Court dated February 14, 1968 in Criminal Revisions Nos. 645 to 648 of 1967.

3. It is necessary at this stage to set out the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code and of the 1922 Act. Section 177, Indian Penal Code states:

"177.Whoever, being legally bound to furnish information on any subject to any public servant, as such, furnishes, as true, information on the subject which he knows or has reason to believe to be false shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both;. . .. . ... . . .. . . ... . . . . . .. . ."

Section 52 of the 1922 Act is to the following effect:

"52. False statement in declaration. If a person makes a statement in a verification mentioned in Section 19A or Section 20A or Section 21 or Section 22 or sub-section (2) of Section 26A or sub-section (3) of Section 30, or sub-section (3) of Section 33 or furnishes a certificate under sub-section (9) of Section 18, which is false, and which he either knows or believes to be false, or does not believe to be true, he shall be punishable, on conviction before a Magistrate, with simple imprisonment which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both."

Section 53 reads as follows:

53. Prosecution to be at instance of Inspecting Assistant Commissioner.- (l) A person shall not be proceeded against for an offence under Section 51 or Section 52 except at the instance of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner.

(2) The Inspecting Assistant Comm

Click Here to Read the rest of this document