M/S World Phone And Another vs Sanyam Suresh Joshi on 24 September, 2014
8. The second forceful contention which was raised by learned counsel
for the revisionist was regarding validity of the sanction order of the
respondent under Section 279(1) of The Income Tax Act, 1961. In this
regard, it was very vehemently urged that the sanction order which
was passed against the revisionist was without any application of
mind and in utter disregard to the material placed before the
Sanctioning Authority. To substantiate his contentions, learned counsel
for the revisionists has placed reliance upon in cases titled as Mohd.
Iqbal Ahmed Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, SC 677, Shree Sonal Gum
Industries and Ors. Vs State of Gujarat and Anr. (2007) 3GLR 2749,
G. Anantharamiah Vs The Income Tax Oficer, Madras (1993) 1 MWN
(Cri) 16, Bee Gee Motors and Tractors Vs Income Tax Officer (1996)
127 CTR (P&H)224, P.V. Pai and Ors Vs Rinawma, CIT
(1993)200ITR 717(Kar), Income Tax Officer Vs Roshni Cold Storage
M/s World Phone and Another Vs Sanyam Suresh Joshi 4 of 8
Criminal Revision Nos.146/14, 147/14 &148/14
(P) Ltd. (1998) 106 TAXMAN 318 (Mad), Ganga Solvent and Ors. Vs
State of Bihar and Anr. Decided on 21.05.1996, Greatway (P) Ltd.
And Ors. Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (1993) Comp
Case 259 (P&H), D.C.Goel And Ors. Vs B.L.Verma and Ors reported
as 1974 93 ITR 63, Delhi, S.G. Kale Vs Union of India reported as
(2001) 168, CTR Raj. 214, M/s Banwarilal Satyanarain and Others Vs
The State of Bihar and Another,(Crl.