TMI Blog2000 (9) TMI 14X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i. The petitioner is an income-tax assessee. The brief facts necessary to dispose of this petition are recapitulated as under: The petitioner received cash loans during the assessment year 1987-88 from Rakesh Aggarwal and Renu Gupta. The details of the cash loans taken during that period are set out as under: --------------------------------------------------------------------- Serial Name of the person from Amount of Date of receipt No. whom loan was accepted cash (Rs.) --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Rakesh Aggarwal 10,000 16-10-1986 2. Renu Gupta 4,000 16-10-1986 3. Renu Gupta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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) the amount or the aggregate amount referred to in clause (a) together with the amount or the aggregate amount referred to in clause (b), is twenty thousand rupees or more: Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any loan or deposit taken or accepted from, or any loan or deposit taken or accepted by,-- (a) Government; (b) any banking company, post office savings bank or co-operative bank; (c) any corporation established by a Central, State or Provincial Act; (d) any Government company as defined in secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... He further stated that he had committed no offence whatsoever. It is also mentioned in the petition that on August 24, 1986, the petitioner paid to Shri Rakesh Aggarwal a sum of Rs.3,000 by a cheque and the petitioner received Rs.10,000 from Rakesh Aggarwal on October 16, 1986. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted that the Income-tax Officer has deliberately suppressed the fact of repayment of Rs.3,000 to Rakesh Aggarwal. Thus, the amount of loan taken from Rakesh Aggarwal was reduced only to Rs.7,000 and, therefore, the provisions of sections 269SS and 276DD of the Income-tax Act, 1961, cannot be attracted in any event. It is also mentioned in the petition that section 276DD of the Income-tax Act has been omitted by the Direct Tax Laws ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the complaint filed on March 31, 1992, under section 276B of the Act for failure on the part of the petitioner-firm to deduct tax at source is clearly not maintainable and deserve to be quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court, i.e., Rayala Corporation (P.) Ltd. v. Director of Enforcement, AIR 1970 SC 494. This judgment has been relied on by the learned judge in the case of Salwan Construction Co. v. Union of India [2000] 245 ITR 175 (Delhi), while quashing the complaint filed by the Income tax Department. Mr. Jolly, learned counsel for the respondent, fairly conceded that the judgment of Salwan Construction Co.'s case [2000] 245 ITR 175 (Delhi), is squ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
