9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (12) TMI 78X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 78-B of Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The brief facts which are relevant for the purpose of deciding this application are as under : 4. Forty complaints were filed against the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 and original accused No.4 under section.276-B read with 278-B of Income Tax Act for not making the payment of tax deducted at source within prescribed time to the credit of Central Government. In these cases, application for discharge was filed by all the accused and it was contended that the amount in question was duly paid by the accused after it was brought to their notice. It is further contended that so far as payment of interest is concerned matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal with a directi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r. P.C. would not apply to the facts of present case. He submitted that ratio of the judgment in C.B. Gautam V/s. Union of India(Supra) would not apply to the facts of present case since in the said case Supreme Court had construed the provisions of Income Tax Act and had observed that notice had to be issued to assessee before imposing civil liability. He further submitted that said ratio would not apply to the case where criminal prosecution was launched against the accused. He further relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Union of India V.Banwari Lal Agarwal reported in AIR 1999 SC 196 wherein Supreme Court has held that giving of prior notice or opportunity of hearing would not necessary as that could be done afte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provisions clearly indicates that where the punishment prescribed under the Act is beyond three years, provisions of Section 468 of Cr. P.C. would not apply to such cases. In the present case, prosecution is launched U/s.276-B wherein punishment prescribed is upto seven years. Learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate therefore, erred in holding that there was delay in filing complaint. He also erred in holding that notice was not issued to the respondents and on that ground, prosecution would not be sustainable. He relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of C.B. Gautam V/s. Union of India(Supra) for that purpose. 8. In my view, said view recorded by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan is clearly erroneous. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9. In my view ratio of the said judgment clearly applies to the facts of the present case. 10. Allegation against respondents are very serious. It is alleged that after having deducted tax at source, they had kept this amount with themselves and only after this fact is pointed out to them after amounts were scrutinized they thereafter paid that amount. Thus, there was delay of merely 4 years, 11 months and 24 days in making the payment. Nature of the offence is such that it is continuing offence and if amount is not paid, it would be considered fresh offence everyday and therefore, the allegations are very serious as there is failure on the party of respondents to deposit amount which belongs to the Central Government promptly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
