Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1990 (6) TMI 68

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... respondents herein alleging that they have contravened the provisions of section 269SS of the Income-tax Act and have rendered themselves liable for punishment under section 276DD of the Income-tax Act. The first respondent in these appeals is a partnership firm and the second respondent is its managing partner. According to the provisions of section 269SS of the Income-tax Act introduced by the Finance Act of 1984, with effect from April 1, 1984, no person shall, after the 30th day of June, 1984, take or accept from any other person any loan or deposit otherwise than by an account-payee cheque or account-payee demand draft if the amount is Rs. 10,000 or more. Section 276DD of the Income-tax Act provides a punishment for contravention of t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ng to section 276DD of the Income-tax Act and, according to him, the fine amount must be equal to the amount of loan or deposits received by the respondent. He, therefore, requests for the award of sentence in accordance with the provisions of the section. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that section 276DD of the Income-tax Act provides a minimum fine which should be equal to the amount of deposit received and as the deposits received in this case exceed Rs. 10,000, imposition of fine of Rs. 50 is illegal. Thus, the appeals are not against inadequacy of sentence but the appeals are on the ground that the sentence awarded is illegal inasmuch as a minimum sentence of fine is prescribed under the Act. Learned counsel for the re .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of sections 269SS and 276DD of the Income-tax Act which read as follows : "Section 269/SS. Mode of taking or accepting certain loans and deposits. No person shall, after the 30th day of June, 1984, take or accept from any other person (hereafter in this section referred to as the depositor), any loan or deposit otherwise than by an account payee cheque or account payee bank draft if, (a) the amount of such loan or deposit or the aggregate amount of such loan and deposit; or (b) on the date of taking or accepting such loan or deposit, any loan or deposit taken or accepted earlier by such person from the depositor is remaining unpaid (whether repayment has fallen due or not), the amount or the aggregate amount remaining, unpaid ; or (c) .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... le to fine" are found but it is always construed that it does not convey any mandate but leaves it to the discretion of the court convicting an accused of the offence of murder, to impose or not to impose fine in addition to the sentence of death or life. So the word "liable" used in the section gives a discretion to the court as regards imposition of fine. So, the power to impose the sentence of fine is discretionary. When such is the case, it cannot be said that when once the court chooses to impose a fine, it should be equal to the amount of the deposit. When the Legislature has chosen to leave the matter regarding imposition of fine to the discretion of the court, it cannot be construed that the Legislature would have intended to curtai .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... has been so wrongly exercised as to call for the substitution of my discretion for that of the trial court. In view of the above reasons, I feel that it would not be proper to interfere with the sentence awarded even on the ground that the sentence awarded is inadequate. In view of the above discussion, I find that the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the provisions of section 276DD of the Income-tax Act prescribe that imposition of fine should always be equal to the amount of deposits is untenable. The word "liable" used in the section gives discretion to the court with regard to the imposition of fine. The court may either choose to impose fine or may dispense with imposition of fine. When such discretion is there .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates