9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (3) TMI 80X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nomic Offences), Indore (Dr. Anil Pare), vide his judgment dated March 12, 1996, passed in Criminal Case No. 12 of 1987, held the accused persons guilty under section 276B read with section 178B of the Income-tax Act and each of them was sentenced to undergo three months' simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2,000 and in default of fine to undergo further imprisonment for one month. The accused persons, then, filed an appeal against the order of conviction and sentence. The learned First Additional Sessions Judge Indore vide impugned judgment allowed the appeal of the co-accused and acquitted them, however, dismissed the appeal filed by the applicant and confirmed the sentence imposed on him. The appeal filed on behalf of appellant No. 1 fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the amount in default has also been deposited in the meantime to the credit of the Government. No such consideration will, of course, apply to levy of interest under section 201(1A)." In the present case, undisputedly the tax deducted at source was deposited when the authorities considered the case for launching prosecution. The delay in depositing the amount is not substantial in the present case, as the delay is said to be of about five months and some days and the amount involved is Rs. 28,776, which cannot be said to be very huge. In such a situation, the authorities concerned should have considered the matter in the light of the instructions contained in the relevant circular. When the conditions for exempting the assessee from prosec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed this important and vital aspect of the matter, therefore, they have failed in proper exercise of their jurisdiction. Therefore, the impugned judgments deserve to be quashed. The default pertains to the assessment year 1985-86 and the prosecution was launched in the year 1987 and the matter is pending since 1999 in this court only. The applicant is said to be above 62 years of age at the time of filing of this revision and presently he is said to be of about 70 years of age. Looking to the surrounding circumstances of the case, I do not find it proper to remit the case to initiate the proceedings afresh after exercising the discretion in the light of the circular issued by the authorities as it will serve no useful purpose. Following Mode ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
