Law:

Section:

I. Section 276AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Offence and prosecution - Failure to comply with sections 269UC, 269UE and 269UL Where it was contended by the accused petitioners that the complaint had not been filed by the Appropriate Authority but the same had been filed by one of its Members and, therefore, the complaint was not maintainable: Held that, the Appropriate Authority while sanctioning the prosecution against the accused had specifically authorized one of its members namely the First Member, to file the complaint. As the complaint had been filed at the instance of the Appropriate Authority and represented by one of its members, as laid down in the decision reported in T.S. Baliah v. T.S. Rangachari, ITO [1969] 72 ITR 787 (SC) the complaint was maintainable. II. Section 276AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Offence and prosecution - Failure to comply with sections 269UC, 269UE and 269UL The immovable property in question was owned as a single unit by SS Ltd. and the same had been dealt with under two sale deeds whereby two undivided shares had been transferred to the third accused for a consideration of Rs. 20 lakhs each. A complaint under section 276AB read with sections 269UC and 269UL was filed against the accused. Held that, the immovable property, which was subjected for sale, was the entire property belonging to the first accused. To circumvent the provisions of Chapter XX-C, the said immovable property had been divided into two equal undivided shares and each such undivided share had been transferred under the aforesaid two sale deeds. As far as the contention of petitioners that since the registering authority had accepted the documents and registered the same there was no violation of the Act and when the registering authority had not been prosecuted, the prosecution of the accused alone was tainted with mala fides was concerned, it had to be pointed out that there is no provision in the Act to prosecute the registering authority for the violation of the provisions contained under section 269UC by the owners of the immovable properties subjected for transfer. Therefore, the said contention for the petitioners could not be countenanced. CASES…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492