Case Details

Citation(s)
2002 SLG 2555 2002 SLD 2555 (2002) 256 ITR 185
Bombay High Court

J.N. PATEL, J.

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

Income Tax Officer

v.

Sultan Enterprises

Law:

Section:

Section 276B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Offences and prosecution - Failure to pay tax deducted at source - Respondents were discharged of offences punishable under sections 276B and 278B on ground that they had already been saddled with penalty - Whether principle of double jeopardy provided under section 300 of Code of Criminal Procedure was applicable in instant case - Held, no - Whether criminal prosecution being a distinct provision, respondents were liable for both recovery of amount with interest and penalty so also for prosecution - Held, yes FACTS The Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), applying the principle of double jeopardy as defined under section 300, of the Code of Criminal Procedure discharged the respondents of the offences punishable under sections 276B and 278B. It was held that they could not be prosecuted on the ground that they had already been saddled with penalty under section 221. On revision application : HELD The C.J.M. erred in applying the principle of double jeopardy as provided under section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the simple reason that the recovery of the amount due and payable by the respondent-firm to the Income-tax Department had nothing to do with the criminal prosecution because it is a distinct provision inviting penal action for the default committed by the firm. They were liable both for recovery of the amount with interest and penalty so also for prosecution for having committed offence punishable under section 276B for their failure to pay the amount within the prescribed period and as the respondent-firm was a partnership concern, all the partners of the firm as contemplated under section 278B would be liable to be prosecuted. Therefore, the impugned order was to be quashed and set aside. The trial court was directed to take up the case for trial and dispose it of in accordance with law. A.S. Jaiswal for the Appellant. Sharad Bhattad for the Respondent. JUDGMENT 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The applicant is the original complainant who filed complaint against the respondents for having committed offence under section 276B, read with section 278B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492