HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
M/s. Govind Impex (P) Ltd. & Ors. v. Appropriate Authority, Income Tax Department
Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 2006
[2010] 14 (Addl.) SCR 523 ·
269UA(f)(i) Explanation · 269UC · 278B · 276AB (contextual correction of printed 267AB; see caution) · 269UP (bounded later statutory context)
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
Two-judge bench · Harjit Singh Bedi, J. · Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, J.
01 · Facts of the case
The owners leased commercial premises from 1 June 1991 for nine years at Rs 2.5 lakh per month. Clause 1 expressly made the lease extendable for a further nine years at the lessee’s option; clause 12 used renewal language, required advance notice, and envisaged a signed and registered renewal on the same terms. The appropriate authority considered Chapter XX-C and Form 37-I compliance applicable, rejected the owners’ explanation and lodged a complaint. The Magistrate took cognizance (paragraph 1; official pages 1–2).
The challenge to the authority’s decision was treated by the High Court as a section 482 CrPC application once prosecution had begun. The High Court refused quashing. The owners argued that renewal requiring a new instrument differed from extension and that strict penal construction supported their reading (paragraphs 2–5).
Source: See the proposition-specific paragraph and PDF-page references below.
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The quoted Explanation aggregates the original term and terms for which the lease can be extended, using the statutory threshold of not less than twelve years. The Court proceeded on the assumption that extension, rather than mere renewal in the abstract, was required; it did not find it necessary to decide the cited precedents on the general difference between those concepts (paragraphs 5–6).
The deed had to be read as a whole. Clause 1 expressly permitted a further nine-year extension, while clause 12 prescribed the conditions for exercising the option. Read together, they contemplated eighteen years, and the lessor could not refuse continuation if the lessee fulfilled the conditions. The Court accepted the general principle of strict construction of penal statutes but found no ambiguity requiring it to isolate clause 12 or disregard clause 1 (paragraphs 6–7).
Source: See the proposition-specific paragraph and PDF-page references below.
03 · Judicial decision
The appeal was dismissed. The statutory-coverage objection did not justify quashing the prosecution. The appellants were directed to appear before the Magistrate within six weeks of the judgment; the Magistrate was to conclude the trial within six months of their appearance. These were historical case-specific directions, not a Supreme Court conviction or a fresh present deadline (paragraphs 8–9).
Source: See the proposition-specific paragraph and PDF-page references below.
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
In whose favour: Revenue/appropriate authority at the quashing stage
Appeal dismissed; trial allowed to continue with appearance and expedition directions
Final on the argued lease-duration/quashing issue; criminal trial still pending under the judgment
No finding of final criminal guilt or later trial result. Applies to the specific deed and historical Chapter XX-C framework, subject to the later statutory limits separately identified.
Source: See the proposition-specific paragraph and PDF-page references below.
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
Read the actual extension option and its conditions together; labels such as renewal are not a substitute for the deed’s enforceable structure. The statutory quotation says not less than twelve years, although some narrative passages say more than twelve; the eighteen-year aggregate made that drafting variation immaterial here. The case does not erase the renewal/extension distinction for every statute.
A bounded statutory check is essential: Finance Act 2002 section 100 inserted section 269UP, excluding transfers effected on or after 1 July 2002 from Chapter XX-C. CBDT Circular 23/2022 paragraphs 47.1–47.2 and 47.8 explain the section 276AB sunset barring fresh proceedings from 1 April 2022 while addressing previously launched cases. Those texts do not establish what ultimately happened in this trial or automatically extinguish every earlier proceeding. No current-law or 2025-Act certification is given.
Source: See the proposition-specific paragraph and PDF-page references below.
Proposition-specific source paragraphs and PDF pages
- topic
- Official identity, case year and date
- source url
- Open cited source
- pdf pages
- 1; 10
- paragraphs
- Cover; signed ending
- source role
- judicial text
- topic
- Lease, complaint and quashing proceedings
- source url
- Open cited source
- pdf pages
- 1; 2; 3; 4
- paragraphs
- 1–4
- source role
- judicial text
- topic
- Statutory quotation and lease clauses
- source url
- Open cited source
- pdf pages
- 5; 6; 7
- paragraphs
- 5–6
- source role
- judicial text
- topic
- Whole-deed construction and penal interpretation
- source url
- Open cited source
- pdf pages
- 8; 9
- paragraphs
- 7
- source role
- judicial text
- topic
- Trial directions and dismissal
- source url
- Open cited source
- pdf pages
- 9; 10
- paragraphs
- 8–9
- source role
- judicial text
- topic
- Reported case-number and penal-section discrepancies
- source url
- Open cited source
- pdf pages
- 1; 3; 4
- paragraphs
- Cover; jurisdiction line; paragraph 1
- source role
- reported metadata and judicial text
- topic
- Historical transfer cutoff
- source url
- Open cited source
- section
- Finance Act 2002 section 100 inserting section 269UP
- source role
- bounded statutory comparison html
- topic
- Fresh-prosecution sunset and previously launched cases
- source url
- Open cited source
- pdf pages
- 92; 93
- paragraphs
- 47.1–47.2 and 47.8
- source role
- official CBDT explanatory circular
Judicial authorship and separate opinions
Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, J.Act identified in the reviewed source
Income-tax Act, 1961Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Identified source rendition: 10 PDF pages; SHA-256 54069649bc95834dde40c275eb8dbc4676f6eca8466d6e1b94a6b4523cd73d55. Original bytes preserved. Complete signed judicial text, all physical pages; no adjacent judgment or separate ROP.
- Official signed original says Criminal Appeal 41/2006. SCR cover says Criminal Appeal 41/2004 and its jurisdiction line says Civil Appeal 41/2004. Primary official original controls; conflicting reported forms are retained as a caution.
- Official signed original says Criminal Appeal 41/2006. SCR cover says Criminal Appeal 41/2004 and its jurisdiction line says Civil Appeal 41/2004. Primary official original controls; conflicting reported forms are retained as a caution.; Both the official judgment paragraph 1 and SCR text print section 267AB. The section 276AB identification is explicitly editorial and supported by the official CBDT circular’s exact description of noncompliance with sections 269UC/UE/UL; the original source is unchanged.; The authority’s recorded view that noncompliance occurred is procedural background, not a Supreme Court criminal conviction.; No assessment year is stated; this is a transfer-compliance/prosecution dispute.
Statutory scope
Current statutory equivalence and 2025 Act applicability have not been verified.
Later treatment
Source checked 2026-10-04. Comprehensive subsequent judicial and statutory treatment has not been verified. Only the expressly identified bounded comparisons have been checked. No current-law or Income-tax Act, 2025 mapping is certified.
Page references identify the supplied PDF; paragraph references identify the judgment unless stated otherwise.
Identified source links
- official original judgment — PDF 10 pages
SHA-256: 54069649bc95834dde40c275eb8dbc4676f6eca8466d6e1b94a6b4523cd73d55
- reported judgment — PDF 9 pages
SHA-256: ef2eb064f8a7d048b5c5c53e6ffc5d0c8a0fed79fda5f11441a6554e276cf63a
- official department statutory reproduction html
- official CBDT explanatory circular — PDF 94 pages
SHA-256: 0588a574afe765a7eb2d17040698008625726dfb01dc50f3a2a3233b15710b24
Coverage, AI disclosure & professional disclaimer
Selected Supreme Court income-tax decisions and procedural orders checked against their identified sources. This collection is not exhaustive. The research catalogue has 2,569 indexed PDF assets, including alternate copies and incidental matches; that is not a count of unique or reviewed judgments. Historical and unreported coverage remains open.
AI-assisted research checked against the identified source. Extraction, interpretation or omission errors remain possible. Source review does not mean independent approval by a practising professional. Verify every material statement against the complete original judgment.
General research information only; not legal or tax advice, a certified judgment or a substitute for the full order. Applicability depends on facts, assessment year, statutory version and jurisdiction. Subsequent treatment is unverified unless a note expressly identifies the sources checked. Downloading does not create a professional engagement. Obtain case-specific advice before reliance.
The official 1961–2025 structural correspondence does not establish that a precedent applies under the new Act. Verify the enacted wording, commencement and transitional provisions separately.