TMI Blog1993 (11) TMI 24X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Nos. 2 to 9 are its partners and they are carrying on the business in the name of a firm, Messrs. Rajasthan Wool Processors at Bikaner. During the assessment year 1983-84, the abovementioned firm had submitted its income-tax return on March 3, 1984, stating therein that the income of the firm was Rs. 364. On perusal of the income-tax return, it is found that the firm had paid Rs. 1,34,993 as interest on the loans taken from the various parties. Section 194A of the Income-tax Act requires that when the payment of interest is more than one thousand then it is obligatory on the petitioner to deduct ten per cent. amount of the interest as income-tax payable by the creditors. In this case, the petitioners have deducted the interest of Rs. 13, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t has to consider only whether any case is made out on the face of the record. The trial court is fully justified in taking cognizance. In Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal, AIR 1979 SC 366, 369; [1979] 2 SCR 229, at pages 234-235, their Lordships laid down the principles which is to be kept in mind for framing the charge: "(1) That the judge while considering the question of framing the charges under section 227 of the Code has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. (2) Where the materials placed before the court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the court w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riage of justice." Considering the facts of this case that the petitioners have deducted ten per cent. of interest payable to various creditors, i.e., Rs. 13,500, which has to be deposited within a particular period in the account of the Central Government but the petitioners have failed to deposit that amount in the account of the Central Government and for that no bona fides have been shown or any reasonable explanation has been brought to my notice. Further, not only the charge has been framed in this case, but the statements of the two witnesses have also been recorded. Considering this fact as stated above, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated September 18, 1990, nor is there any justification to quash the pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
