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

1986 (12) TMI 25

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... section 210 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred as " the Act"), requiring to pay a sum of Rs. 1,43,47,719 as advance tax was served on the company on May 30, 1974. This notice was issued on the basis of the previous assessments. Under section 212 of the Act, it was open to the company, instead of making the payment of advance tax demanded under section 210, to submit an estimate of its current income if this current income was likely to be less than the income on which advance tax had been demanded under section 210. The company, in exercise of this right, filed an estimate in the prescribed form signed by Sh. Rama Shankar Bajpai on June 13, 1974, estimating its total income as nil. The second estimate, estimating the t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the Income-tax Rules, 1962, which were false and which it either knew or believed to be false or did not believe to be true. The company had thus committed an offence punishable under section 277 of the Income-tax Act and section 177 of the Indian Penal Code. It was further averred that S/Sh. Sita Ram Singhania and Rama Shankar Bajpai had abetted the company in filing a false estimate of its total income and had thus committed offences punishable under section 278 of the Act and section 109 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, by his order dated November 15, 1985, took cognizance of the offences, found sufficient grounds to proceed against the company for offences under section 277 of the Act and sect .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ples of natural justice. 5. The company was an artificial juridical person. It could not be attributed with any mens rea which was required to be proved for an offence under section 277 of the Act and, therefore, the complaint against the company was not competent. 6. The maximum sentence for the offences under section 277 at the relevant time was rigorous imprisonment for two years. This sentence could not be imposed on the company which was a juridical person and the complaint against the company was, therefore, liable to be quashed. Section 177 of the Criminal Procedure Code reads as under : " 177. Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed." The pr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... efore, the offences committed by them also were triable by a competent court at Kanpur. The Delhi Court, in these circumstances, had no jurisdiction to try the offences, the subject-matter of the complaint. Mr. D. K. Jain, learned counsel for the complainant, contended that section 277 of the Act has to be read along with sections 273 and 275 of the Act. It was pointed out that the assessments were completed at Delhi where it was found that estimates delivered by the company were false. The penalty proceedings were taken at Delhi and, therefore, the Delhi courts had jurisdiction to try the case. It was also contended that no prejudice was likely to be caused to the petitioners if the complaint was tried at Delhi as all the records were a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ction to try the offences, the subject-matter of the complaint. The impugned order was illegal and liable to be quashed. Learned counsel for the complainant contended that in case the Delhi courts had no jurisdiction, the complaint was liable to be transferred to the Kanpur courts. Learned counsel for the petitioners conceded this contention and had no objection if the complaint was transferred to Kanpur. In the view taken above, it is neither desirable nor proper for me to record findings on the other submissions made on behalf of the petitioners. I, consequently, accept these petitions, set aside the impugned order and instead transfer the complaint to the Court of the Chief judicial Magistrate, Kanpur, for deciding the same in a .....

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