Bangalore District Court
The Income Tax Department vs M/S. Gokaldas Images Private Limited on 7 March, 2023
BEFORE THE SPECIAL COURT FOR ECONOMIC
OFFENCES: AT BENGALURU
Dated this the 7th day of March 2023
:Present:
Sri. ANAND S. KARIYAMMANAVAR, B.A., LL.B., (Hon')
Presiding Officer, Special Court
For Economic Offences, Bengaluru.
C.C.No.200/2019
Complainant: The Income Tax Department
By the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
TDS Ward-1(1),
Bengaluru.
(Reptd. By Sri. S.S.H., Advocate (Spl. P.P)
Vs.
Accused : 1. M/s. Gokaldas Images Private Limited,
No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb,
2nd Stage, Yeshwanthapura,
Tumkur Road,
Bengaluru - 560 022.
Reptd. by its Managing Director
2. Sri. Sumir J Hinduja,
Managing Director,
M/s. Gokaldas Images Private Limited,
No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb,
2nd Stage, Yeshwanthapura,
Tumkur Road,
Bengaluru - 560 022.
(Reptd. By Sri. SA., Advocate)
: JU DG M E NT :
This is a complaint made by the complainant against
the accused No.1 & 2 for the offence punishable under
2 C.C.200/2019
section 276B r/w. section 278B of the Income Tax Act, 1961
(hereinafter referred as IT Act).
2. The brief facts of the case of the complainant that:
Accused No.1 is the company registered under
Companies Act, engaged in Garments business and accused
No.2 being the Managing Director of accused No.1, is
responsible for day to day conduct and business of accused
No.1 company. Therefore, accused No.2 is treated as
Principal Officer of accused No.1 company by issuing notice
U/s.2(35) of IT Act on 28.09.2018 and the said notice has
been duly served on accused No.2, for the same, he replied on
14.11.2018. Further, it is the case of the complainant that
both the accused have deducted TDS during the financial
year 2016-17 on various heads U/s.192, 194C, 194H, 194I &
194J of IT Act, 1961 to an extent of Rs.3,52,99,582/-, but
they failed to remit the same to the Central Government
account within stipulated period. Further, it is the case of
the complainant that the Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS,
Bengaluru issued show cause notice on 16.01.2019 to both
the accused informing about the offences and on 08.02.2019,
the accused No.2 replied to the said notice and acknowledged
the receipt of show cause notice and in the said reply the
accused have admitted the TDS liability. Further, it is the
case of the complainant that it is the bounden duty of the
accused to remit the TDS deducted within the stipulated
period as per rule 30 of IT rules, since they failed to remit the
same. Hence, the present complaint came to be filed.
3 C.C.200/2019
3. Upon receiving the complaint, the sworn statement is
dispensed with as the complainant is a public servant and
this court took cognizance for the offence punishable
U/s.276B r/w 278B of Income Tax Act, 1961. Thereafter, the
summons was issued to the accused No.1 & 2 and they
appeared and enlarged on bail. The charge was framed and
read over to accused No.2 and explained to him in the
language known to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to
be tried. As such, the complainant was called upon to lead
evidence.
4. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the
complainant has been examined as PW-1 and another
witness examined as PW-2 and got marked ten documents as
Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-9.
5. After the completion of evidence on behalf of
complainant, the incriminating evidence available against
accused persons was read over as per the provisions of
Section 313 of Cr.P.C. However, accused denied the same
and accused No.2 has been examined as DW-1 and got
marked 26 documents as Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-26.
6. Heard the arguments advanced by both the counsels for
the complainant and accused. Upon hearing their arguments
and on going through the materials on record, the following
points arise for determination of this court:
1) Whether the complainant proves beyond all
reasonable doubt that the accused No.1 being
the company defaulted in remittance of TDS of
4 C.C.200/2019
Rs.3,52,99,582/- for the financial year 2016-
17 to the Central Government within
stipulated period thereby committed the
offence punishable U/s.276B of IT Act, 1961?
2) Whether the complainant further proves
beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused
No.2 being the Managing Director of accused
No.1 is also liable to be punished as Principal
Officer U/s.278B of IT Act, 1961?
3) What order?
7. My findings on the above said points are as under:
Point No.1: In the Affirmative
Point No.2: In the Negative
Point No.3: As per final order
for the following:
REASONS
8. Point No.1 : The complainant in order to prove its case
got examined the complainant as PW-1 and one witness as
PW-2 and got marked Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-9.
9. PW-1 in her chief-examination, deposed that her
predecessor in office has investigated the matter relating to
non-remittance of TDS by the accused for the financial year
2016-17 to an extent of Rs.3,52,99,582/- and also deposed
that there was a delay of 2 to 17 months. Further, she
deposed that the proposal to the Commissioner of Income
Tax, TDS was sent to accord sanction to prosecute against
the accused for the offence punishable U/s.276B of IT Act
and on 16.01.2019, the Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS
issued show cause notice to accused No.1 & 2 and for the
5 C.C.200/2019
same, on 08.02.2019 both the accused replied to the said
notice. Further she deposed that after considering the reply
given by accused No.1 & 2, the Commissioner of Income Tax,
TDS accorded sanction, therefore she filed this complaint.
The show cause notices are marked as Ex.P-1 & Ex.P-2, reply
given by the accused is marked as Ex.P-3 and sanction order
is marked as Ex.P-4.
10. By relying on the above said oral and documentary
evidence, learned Spl. PP vehemently argued that there is a
delay in remittance of TDS for the financial year 2016-17 and
as per rule 30 of IT rules, the accused ought to have remitted
the TDS well within time. Further, learned Spl. PP relied on
rule 30 of IT rules which read as under:
Rule 30(2) of I.T. Rules provide details of payments
liable for TDS and due dates of remittance of tax
deducted to the Government account.
(2) All sums deducted in accordance with the
provisions of Chapter XVII-B by deductors other
than an office of the Government shall be paid to
the credit of the Central Government--
(a) on or before 30th day of April where the income
or amount is credited or paid in the month of
March; and
(b) in any other case, on or before seven days from
the end of the month in which--
(i) the deduction is made; or
6 C.C.200/2019
(ii) income-tax is due under sub-section
(1A) of section 192.
11. On careful perusal of above said provisions of law the
accused ought to have paid the TDS on or before 7 th day from
the end of the month, in which, the deduction is made. But in
the present case, the accused have not remitted the TDS well
within time and there is a delay in payment of TDS to the
Central Government. By relying on the oral and documentary
evidence adduced by the complainant, learned Spl. PP argued
that the accused No.1 has committed the offence punishable
U/s.276B of IT Act.
12. However, in the present the accused have taken
following defences:
1. The accused No.1 has paid entire TDS along
with interest, therefore, the same is not the
offence punishable U/s.276B of IT Act.
2. The show cause notice and sanction order is
bad in law as the same does not disclose
correct limb of the section, in which, accused
has contravened.
3. No levy of penalty precludes the initiation of
prosecution and there was a reasonable cause
for delay in remittance.
4. The accused No.2 is not a Principal Officer of
accused No.1
13. Defence No.1 & 3 : (1) The accused No.1 has paid entire
TDS along with interest, therefore, the same is not the offence
punishable U/s.276B of IT Act (3) No levy of penalty
precludes the initiation of prosecution and there was a
reasonable cause for delay in remittance : In the present
7 C.C.200/2019
case the accused has specifically contended that the accused
No.1 has paid entire TDS along with interest and the
complainant have not initiated penalty proceedings against
the accused as there was a reasonable cause for delay in
remittance of TDS. At the time of arguments learned counsel
for the accused has relied upon the cross-examination of
PW-1, in which, PW-1 admitted that the accused No.1 has
paid entire TDS along with interest.
14. On perusal of materials available on record it is not
disputed by either of the party about the payment of TDS
belatedly. However, in order to attract the alleged offence, the
important material fact is non payment of TDS well within
time. As per the provisions of rule 30 of IT rules, which reads
as under:
Rule 30(2) of I.T. Rules provide details of payments
liable for TDS and due dates of remittance of tax
deducted to the Government account.
(2) All sums deducted in accordance with the
provisions of Chapter XVII-B by deductors other
than an office of the Government shall be paid to
the credit of the Central Government--
(a) on or before 30th day of April where the income
or amount is credited or paid in the month of
March; and
(b) in any other case, on or before seven days from
the end of the month in which--
(i) the deduction is made; or
8 C.C.200/2019
(ii) income-tax is due under sub-section
(1A) of section 192.
And as per the provisions of rule Section 276B of IT Act,
which reads as under:
276B. If a person fails to pay to the credit of the
Central Government-
(a) The tax deducted at source by him as
required by or under the provisions of Chapter
XVII-B;or
(b) The tax payable by him, as required by or
under-
(i) Sub-section (2) of section 115-O; or
(ii) The second proviso to section 194B,
he shall be punishable with rigorous
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less
than three months, but which may extend to
seven years and with fine.
15. On careful perusal of above said provisions of law, it
clearly says that any person who fails to pay the TDS to the
credit of the Central Government, he shall be punishable and
as per rule 30, every tax deducted at source should be paid to
the credit of the Central Government within a week from the
last date of the month, in which, the deduction is made. In
the present case the deduction of the TDS and non
remittance of the same within time is not disputed by the
9 C.C.200/2019
accused and accused has admitted the same in his chief-
examination that "there was inadequate working capital with
us, company had to choose continuity of the business since
we have thousands of employees. Therefore we could not
paid the TDS well in time, since ours is mercantile system
much of amount not yet pay to many people this was a
reason for delay in payment of TDS.
16. Further, at the time of arguments learned counsel for
the accused has relied upon Section 276B and submitted that
the word used in Section 276B is 'fails to pay and same has
not expressed fails to pay within the prescribed time'.
Therefore, there is no any prescribed time in U/s.276B and
accused has paid TDS along with interest before initiating the
prosecution. Therefore, the same does not amounts to failure
to pay.
17. No doubt Section 276B of IT Act does not express the
prescribed time to remit the TDS. However, Section 276B of
IT Act always be r/w rule 30(2) of IT rules, in which, the
prescribed time has specifically mentioned that on or before
7th day from the end of the month. Under such
circumstances, the said defence taken by the accused does
not holds good.
18. Further, in this case, the accused have contended that
since there was a reasonable cause for non remittance of TDS
well in time, therefore, the complainant authority have not
initiated penalty proceedings and due to financial crisis, the
accused have not remitted the TDS well in time. In order to
10 C.C.200/2019
substantiate the said defence, the accused No.2 is examined
as DW-1 and got marked Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-26. Further, he
deposed that in the year 2008-09 there was a global crash
recession, therefore, the exporters from India had sustained
huge loss, the said loss continued even after the year 2016-17
and also deposed that there was inadequate capital with
company and in order to continue the business and to save
the thousands of employees, they could not pay the TDS well
in time, thereby he relied upon Ex.D-3 which is IT returns for
assessment year 2017-18, the same reveals that the accused
have sustained loss during the years 2009-10 to 2017-18 and
also relied upon Ex.P-9 which is balance dated 31.03.2017.
By relying on these two documents, the counsel for the
accused argued that as the accused No.1 company under
continuous loss, therefore, they could not paid the TDS well
in time.
19. On perusal of materials available on record, except
Ex.D-3 and Ex.P-9, the accused has not produced any other
substantial documents to show the actual loss of accused
No.1 company for the financial year 2016-17 and the
documents produced by the accused itself shows that the
accused No.1 company is having sufficient source to pay the
TDS. On the other hand, the accused No.2 has not produced
what is the assets and liabilities of accused No.1 company in
order to show its actual financial loss for the financial year
2016-17. In the absence of such documentary evidence, the
court cannot presume that there was a financial difficulties to
the accused No.1 company for the said period. Further, at
11 C.C.200/2019
the time of arguments learned counsel for the accused has
relied upon the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka
in Dr. Viloo Patell V/s. Income Tax Department reported in
(2019)112 taxmann.com 220 (Kar) in which, Hon'ble High
Court of Karnataka observed that:
"5. Coming to the next contention that the
sanction order issued for prosecution of
petitioners, does not reflect application of mind is
concerned, I have gone through the said sanction
order wherein the Commissioner of Income
Tax/Sanctioning authority has narrated the facts
of the case, referred to provisions of law applicable
to the facts and has observed that an opportunity
was given to the assessee in default to make the
payment Para 6 of the sanction order dated
15.10.2015 reads as follows:-
"6. Opportunity: This office has sent show cause
notice dated 02.05.2014, 24.06.2014, 12.08.2014
under section 276B read with section 278B of the
Income Tax Act, 1961, requiring the deductor to
show cause why prosecution proceedings should
not be initiated for the said default of non-
remittance of TDS to Central Government
account"
"Under the said circumstances, if any amount was
paid pursuant to the said show cause notice, the
proof thereof could have been produced by
petitioners so as to avoid criminal proceedings"
"There is nothing on record to show that the
remittance made by the petitioners have been
brought to the notice to the Central Government"
20. On perusal of the above said ratio of Hon'ble High Court
of Karnataka, no doubt that if accused have paid the TDS
along with interest before initiating the prosecution and same
12 C.C.200/2019
is communicated to the complainant, the prosecution may
avoided. However, there are no materials to show that the
accused has communicated the payment of TDS along with
interest subsequently. No doubt, the accused has produced
Ex.D-5 which is letter written to Commissioner, Income Tax,
TDS about payment of TDS with interest. But there are no
evidence to show that the letter has been duly served on
complainant.
21. Further, at the time of arguments learned counsel for
the accused vehemently argued that the complainant have
not initiated penalty proceedings U/s.201(1) of IT Act.
Therefore, the accused is entitled for acquitted as there was
reasonable cause. On perusal of materials available on
record, no doubt, there are no materials to show that penalty
proceedings was initiated against the accused. However,
mere non-initiation of penalty proceedings will not dispense
the accused No.1 to prove the reasonable cause to delay in
remittance of TDS as provided U/s.278AA of IT Act.
22. Further, at the time of arguments learned Spl. PP relied
upon Section 278E of IT Act, which reads as under:
Section 278E of Income Tax Act "Presumption as to
culpable mental state"
278E. (1) In any prosecution for any offence under
this Act which requires a culpable mental state on
the part of the accused, the court shall presume the
existence of such mental state but it shall be a
defence for the accused to prove the fact that he
13 C.C.200/2019
had no such mental state with respect to the act
charged as an offence in that prosecution.
Explanation.-In this sub-section, "culpable mental
state" includes intention, motive or knowledge of a
fact or belief in, or reason to believe, a fact.
(2) For the purposes of this section, a fact is said to
be proved only when the court believes it to exist
beyond reasonable doubt and not merely when its
existence is established by a preponderance of
probability.
23. On careful perusal of above said provisions of law, the
court shall presume about the existence of culpable mental
state on the part of the accused. Though the said section
provides defence of accused to prove that he had no such
mental state. However, the accused failed to prove the same.
Therefore, on perusal of oral and documentary evidence
adduced by the complainant clearly makes that there was
delay in remittance of TDS for the financial year 2016-17 by
accused No.1 company and accused has failed to prove the
reasonable cause for delay in remittance of TDS.
24. Defence No.2: T he show cause notice and sanction
order is bad in law as the same does not disclose correct
limb of the section, in which, accused has contravened :
In the present case the accused has specifically contended
that the show cause notice issued by the complainant does
not indicate under which limb of the section the prosecution
14 C.C.200/2019
is proposed to be initiated. Therefore, the show cause notice
issued by the complainant in this case is bad in law. In
support of his defence, the counsel for the accused has relied
upon the the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka
2012 SCC Online Kar 8862 reported in Commissioner of
Income Tax and another V/s. Manjunatha Cotton and
Ginning Factory and others in which, Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka held that:
"Any notice which does not specify under which
limb of section accused committed offence, the
said notice is bad under law"
25. Further, he relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Amrit Foods V/s. Commissioner of Central Excise
(U.P.) in which, it has held that:
"The assessee necessarily to be put on notice has
to the exact nature of the contravention for which
the assessee was liable under the provisions of rule
173Q"
26. Further, he relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in CIT V/s. SSA's Emerald Meadows reported in
(2016)73 taxmann.com 248 (SC) in which it has held that:
"Section 274, read with section 271(1)(c), of the
Income Tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - Procedure for
imposition of (Conditions precedent) - Assessment
year 2009-10 - Tribunal, relying on decision of
Division Bench of Karnataka High Court rendered
in case of CIT V/s. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning
Factory (2013) 359 ITR 565/218 Taxman 423/35
taxmann.com 260, allowed appeal of assessee
15 C.C.200/2019
holding that notice issued by Assessing Officer
under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) was
bad in law, as it did not specify under which limb
of section 271(1)(c) penalty proceedings had been
initiated, i.e., whether for concealment of
particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate
particulars of income - High Court held that
matter was covered by aforesaid decision of
Division Bench and, therefore, there was no
substantial question of law arising for
determination - Whether since there was no merit
in SLP filed by revenue, same was liable to be
dismissed - Held, yes (para 2) (In favour of
assessee)"
27. By relying on the above judgments of Hon'ble Supreme
Court and Hon'ble High Courts, the counsel for the accused
argued that the show cause notice and sanction order does
not disclose under which limb of Section 276B of IT Act the
accused has committed offence. However, on perusal of show
cause notice and sanction order, no doubt, the specific limb
of Section 276B in which, the accused contravened is not
mentioned specifically, but when we read the show cause
notice and sanction order together completely, then it can
determined that the accused has contravened the provisions
of Chapter XVII-B of IT Act. Hence, the present defence does
not holds goods. Accordingly, I answer Point No.1 in the
Affirmative.
28. Point No.2: In the present case the complainant has
specifically contended that they have treated the accused
No.2 as Principal Officer of the accused No.1 company. In
order to substantiate the same, the complainant examined
CW-2 as PW-2, he being the Deputy Commissioner of Income
16 C.C.200/2019
Tax deposed that on 28.09.2019 he had issued notice
U/s.2(35) of IT Act by treating the accused No.2 as Principal
Officer of accused No.1 company as the accused has
committed the offence punishable U/s.276B r/w Section
278B of IT Act. Further, he deposed that on 14.11.2018, the
accused No.2 has replied to the said notices same are marked
as Ex.P-5 & Ex.P-6.
29. By relying on Ex.P-5 & Ex.P-6 learned Spl. PP
vehemently argued that the accused No.2 being the Principal
Officer of accused No.1 company is also responsible for day to
day business of accused No.1 company. Therefore, he has to
be punished U/s.278B of IT Act.
30. However, the accused No.2 had taken a following
defence that:
31. Defence No.4: The accused No.2 is not a Principal
Officer of accused No.1 : In the present case the accused
No.2 had taken a specific defence that at no point of time, he
was responsible for day to day affairs of accused No.1
company and he is not authorized person either to instruct or
to direct the financial staffs of accused No.1 company. In
order to substantiate the same, the accused No.2 has relied
upon Ex.D-6 and Ex.D-17 which are notices U/s.2(35) of IT
Act issued to the father and mother of the accused No.2. This
itself shows that he complainant is not firm about who is
Principal Officer. Further in order to show that the accused
No.2 was not responsible person and not involved in day to
day financial affairs of accused No.1, he relied upon Ex.D-7 to
17 C.C.200/2019
Ex.D-15 which are the bank payment vouchers, credit card
authorization agreement, customers authorization for
payment by credit card, RTGS transaction request form,
broker letter etc., which are duly signed by father of the
accused No.2 and the above said documents are pertaining to
the financial/account transactions of accused No.1 which
prima facie reveals that the accused No.2 at no point of time
had taken part in day to day financial affairs of accused No.1
company. However, at the time of arguments, learned Spl. PP
relied upon Ex.P-6 and contended that the accused No.2
himself by replying to the notice stated that the father and
mother of the accused No.2 are suffering from ill health and
hospitalized thereby the accused No.2 under took liabilities of
TDS. Therefore, he treated as Principal Officer of accused
No.1 company. But during the cross-examination of PW-2 at
para No.3, he specifically stated that "It is true that the reply
marked as Ex.P-6 the accused No.2 has not admitted that he
is in charge of day to day affairs of accused No.1". Therefore,
at this stage, it is just and proper to peruse Section 278B of
IT Act, which reads as under:
278B. (1) Where an offence under this Act has been
committed by a company, every person who, at the
time the offence was committed, was in charge of,
and was responsible to, the company for the
conduct of the business of the company as well as
the company shall be deemed to be guilty of the
offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against
and punished accordingly:
18 C.C.200/2019
Provided that nothing contained in this sub-
section shall render any such person liable to any
punishment if he proves that the offence was
committed without his knowledge or that he had
exercised all due diligence to prevent the
commission of such offence.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-
section (1), where an offence under this Act has
been committed by a company and it is proved that
the offence has been committed with the consent
or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect
on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or
other officer of the company, such director,
manager, secretary or other officer shall also be
deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be
liable to be proceeded against and punished
accordingly.
(3) Where an offence under this Act has been
committed by a person, being a company, and the
punishment for such offence is imprisonment and
fine, then, without prejudice to the provisions
contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2),
such company shall be punished with fine and
every person, referred to in sub-section (1), or the
director, manager, secretary or other officer of the
company referred to in sub-section (2), shall be
liable to be proceeded against and punished in
accordance with the provisions of this Act,
19 C.C.200/2019
(a) "company" means a body corporate, and
includes-
(i) a firm; and
(ii) an association of persons or a body of
individuals whether incorporated or not; and
(b) "director', in relation to-
(i) a firm, means a partner in the firm;
(ii) any association of per- sons or a body of
individuals, means any member controlling the
affairs thereof.
32. On careful perusal of the above said provisions of law,
in order to prove the guilt of the accused U/s.278B of IT Act,
the complainant has to prove that the accused No.2 was in
charge and responsible to the conduct of the business of
accused No.1 company. However, the complainant other
than the notice U/s.2(35) of IT Act, he has not produced any
documents to show that the accused No.2 was responsible for
day to day affairs of accused No.1 company and on the other
hand Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-26 reveals that the accused No.2 was
not responsible for the day to day affairs of accused No.1
company. Therefore, the complainant has failed to prove the
guilt of the accused No.2 beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence,
I answer Point No.2 in the Negative.
20 C.C.200/2019
33 . Point No.3: In view of my findings on Point No.1 & 2, I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
By exercising the power conferred under section 248(2) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.1 is convicted for the offence punishable under section 276B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
By exercising the power conferred under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.2 is acquitted for the offence punishable under section 278B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The bail bond of accused No.2 shall stand cancelled.
To hear regarding sentence on accused No.1. (Dictated to the Stenographer, same has been typed, corrected and then pronounced by me, in open court on this the 7th day of March 2023) (ANAND S. KARIYAMMANAVAR) Presiding Officer, Spl. Court for Economic Offences, Bengaluru.
ORDER ON SENTENCE Heard the Lrd. counsel representing the accused No.1 and Spl. P.P. Lrd counsel for the accused No.1 argued that accused No.1 company is suffering from financial 21 C.C.200/2019 problems. Hence, sought to take a lenient view in imposing the sentence.
Per contra, learned Spl. PP submitting to impose maximum sentence.
Heard both sides.
Accused No.1 is a juristic entity and failed in remitting the TDS in time to the Central Government account. However, accused No.1 paid TDS subsequently. By considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The accused No.1 company is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) for having committed the offence punishable under section 276B of the Income Tax Act 1961.
The accused No.2 being Director/Managing Director shall pay the fine imposed on accused No.1 company.
PRESIDING OFFICER.22 C.C.200/2019
ANNEXURE:
List of the witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
PW-1 : Mrs. Cathy Tresa Mathew PW-2 : Sri. Vijay Kumar M.D. List of the Documents exhibited on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.P-1 & 2 : Attested copies of Show Cause Notices
Ex.P-3 : Reply
Ex.P-4 : Sanction Order
Ex.P-5 : C/c. Of Notice
Ex.P-6 : Reply
Ex.P-7 : C/c. Of Proposal
Ex.P-8 : C/c. Of Payment Schedule
Ex.P-9 : C/c. Of Acknowledgments of TDS Returns
List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Accused:
DW-1 : Sumir J Hinduja List of Documents examined on behalf of the Accused:
Ex.D-1 : Statement of TDS
Ex.D-2 : Form No.16A
Ex.D-3 : IT Returns for AY 2017-18
Ex.D-4 : Intimation U/s.143(1) of IT Act
Ex.D-5 : Reply
Ex.D-6 : Notice U/s.2(35) of IT Act
Ex.D-7 : Bank Payment Vouchers
Ex.D-8 : Credit Card Authorization Agreement
Ex.D-9 : Credit Card Authorization Agreement
Ex.D-10 : Customer Authorization for Payment
Ex.D-11 : Request Form of RTGS Transaction
Ex.D-12 : Letter
Ex.D-13 : Broker Letter of Authority
Ex.D-14 : Letter of ADHOC
Ex.D-15 : C/c. Of Power of Attorney
Ex.D-16 : C/c. Of Discharge Summary
Ex.D-17 : C/c. Of Notice U/s.2(35) of IT Act
Ex.D-18 : C/c. Of Discharge Summary
Ex.D-19 : Form No.AOC-4XVRL
Ex.D-20 : Form No.ADT-1
Ex.D-21 : Form No.24Q
Ex.D-22 : Form No.26Q
23 C.C.200/2019
Ex.D-23 : C/c. Of Certificate U/s.65B Ex.D-24 : C/c. Of Tripartite Agreement Ex.D-25 : Introductory Letter Ex.D-26 : True copy of Annual Return Presiding Officer, Spl. Court for Economic Offences, Bengaluru.24 C.C.200/2019
07.03.2023 Complt: IT Accd:SA For Judgment Judgment pronounced in the open court (vide separate order) ORDER By exercising the power conferred under section 248(2) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.1 is convicted for the offence punishable under section 276B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
By exercising the power conferred under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.2 is acquitted for the offence punishable under section 278B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The bail bond of accused No.2 shall stand cancelled.
To hear regarding sentence on accused No.1.
PRESIDING OFFICER.
25 C.C.200/2019To hear regarding sentence.
(Orders regarding sentence pronounced in open court vide separate order) ORDER The accused No.1 company is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) for having committed the offence punishable under section 276B of the Income Tax Act 1961.
The accused No.2 being Director/Managing Director shall pay the fine imposed on accused No.1 company.
PRESIDING OFFICER.
26 C.C.200/2019ORDER ON SENTENCE
1. Heard the Lrd. counsel representing the accused No.1 and Spl. P.P.
2. Lrd counsel for the accused No.1 argued that accused No.1 company is suffering from financial problems. Hence, sought to take a lenient view in imposing the sentence.
3. Per contra, learned Spl. PP submitting to impose maximum sentence.
4. Heard both sides.
5. Accused No.1 is a juristic entity and failed in remitting the TDS in time to the Central Government account. However, accused No.1 paid TDS subsequently. By considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The accused No.1 company is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) for having committed the offence punishable under section 276B of the Income Tax Act 1961.
The accused No.2 being Director/Managing Director shall pay the fine imposed on accused No.1 company.
27 C.C.200/2019PRESIDING OFFICER.