CIT Not Competent Authority to Grant Sanction to Prosecute Income Tax Officer in Corruption Case: Calcutta HC [Read Order]
The court held that a Commissioner of Income Tax is not competent to grant sanction to prosecute an Income Tax Officer appointed by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax.
![CIT Not Competent Authority to Grant Sanction to Prosecute Income Tax Officer in Corruption Case: Calcutta HC [Read Order]](https://images.taxscan.in/h-upload/2026/01/22/2121377-cit-not-competent-authority-taxscan.webp "CIT Not Competent Authority to Grant Sanction to Prosecute Income Tax Officer in Corruption Case: Calcutta HC [Read Order]")
In a recent ruling, the Calcutta High Court held that a sanction given by the Commissioner of Income Tax to prosecute an Income Tax Officer is invalid when the officer was appointed by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, since a lower authority cannot give sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Article 311 of the Constitution. The Central Bureau of...
In a recent ruling, the Calcutta High Court held that a sanction given by the Commissioner of Income Tax to prosecute an Income Tax Officer is invalid when the officer was appointed by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, since a lower authority cannot give sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Article 311 of the Constitution.
The Central Bureau of Investigation filed a criminal revision against an order of the 3rd Special Court (CBI), Calcutta, which had discharged Chandra Nath Kayal, an Income Tax Officer, from corruption charges. The case arose from a trap based on an allegation that the officer demanded a bribe of Rs. 2,000 for processing a tax refund, after which a charge sheet was filed.
It was not disputed that the officer was appointed by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax on 23 April 2010, but the sanction to prosecute him was given on 11 July 2012 by the Commissioner of Income Tax. After the trial had partly started, the accused sought discharge, arguing that the sanction was invalid as it was granted by a subordinate authority. The Special Court accepted this argument and discharged him, leading the CBI to approach the High Court.
The CBI argued that the Commissioner of Income Tax was competent to grant sanction and relied on a departmental notification. It also argued that even if the sanction was defective, a fresh sanction should have been allowed, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Nanjappa v. State of Karnataka (2015). The CBI further said that the withdrawal of general consent by West Bengal under the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act would not affect the case since it was registered earlier.
The accused argued that the sanction violated Section 19(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Article 311(1) of the Constitution because it was granted by a lower authority. They also argued that after the State withdrew its general consent, the CBI could not take any fresh steps in the case, making the defect incurable.
Justice Uday Kumar observed that a valid sanction is not just a formality but a basic legal requirement. The Court explained that the power to grant sanction lies with the authority competent to remove the public servant from service. Since the accused was appointed by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, the Commissioner of Income Tax had no authority to grant sanction.
The court pointed out that departmental notifications cannot override constitutional and legal protections, and the sanction was void from the beginning.
The court further observed that although defective sanctions are usually curable, this case was different because West Bengal had withdrawn general consent under the DSPE Act. Getting a fresh sanction would require a fresh exercise of power, which the CBI could not do after the withdrawal of consent. The court held that the discharge order passed by the Special Court was legally correct and suffered from no infirmity.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
