Bangalore District Court
The Income Tax Officer vs M/S. Suryodaya Infrastructure Pvt on 3 August, 2017
1 CC.No.345-14
BEFORE THE SPECIAL COURT FOR ECONOMIC OFFENCES: AT
BANGALORE.
Dated this the 3rd day of August 2017.
: Present:
Sri. SHANTHANNA ALVA M., B.A., LL.B.,
Presiding Officer, Special Court
for Economic Offences, Bangalore.
CC. No. 345-2014.
Complainant: The Income Tax Officer, (TDS)
Income Tax Department, Ward -18(2),
Bangalore.
(By Spl. P.P. Sri. J.J.N.,)
. Vs.
Accused: 1.M/s. Suryodaya Infrastructure Pvt., Ltd.,
No.387/1, 2nd Main Road, HMT Layout,
Anandnagar, Bangalore.
A Company registered under Companies
Act, represented by its Managing Director,
Venkateshwaralu.
2.Venkateshwaralu, Managing Director,
No.387/1, 2nd Main Road, HMT Layout,
Anandnagar, Bangalore
3.Smt.Madhavi, Director,
M/s. Suryodaya Infrastructure Pvt., Ltd.,
No.387/1, 2nd Main Road, HMT Layout,
Anandnagar, Bangalore.
(By Sri. C. U. Advocate)
JUDGEMENT
1. The complainant/Income Tax Department through Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ward-18 (2), Bangalore filed the complaint u/s. 200 of Cr.P.C., alleging that accused 2 CC.No.345-14 persons have committed the offence punishable u/s.276B, R/w. Sec.278B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (Herein after referred as the 'Act')
2. The case of the complainant is that the accused No.1-M/s. Suryodaya Infrastructure Pvt., Ltd., Bangalore is a company registered under the provisions of Companies Act and it is engaged in the business of Infrastructure Projects. The accused No.2 is the Managing Director of accused No.1 company, the accused No.3 is the Director of accused No.1 company and they are responsible for the day to day business and conduct of the accused No.1 company and treated as Principal Officers of the accused No.1 company. The deducted TDS amount was Rs. 60,78,468/- as per the TDS returns filed by the accused No.1. The accused not deposited the deducted TDS amount within time. The Assessing Officer vide notice dated: 13.11.2013 called upon the accused No.1 to show cause as to why prosecution for the offence punishable u/s.276B, R/w.S.278B should not be initiated 3 CC.No.345-14 for the default committed by the accused No.1 company. In response to the notice, the accused No.1 sent reply dated: 04.12.2013 stating that amounts were paid on various dates and requested to close the proceedings. The Assessing Officer issued the notice u/s. 2(35) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 treating the accused No.2 & 3 as Principle Officers of the accused No.1 company and after going through the replies given by accused No.2 & 3, the Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) passed sanction order authorizing the complainant to file the complaint against the accused persons.
3. It is averred that the accused persons are duty bound to remit the deducted TDS within stipulated period of time as prescribed in Rule-30 of Income Tax Rules and the failure to remit the TDS after its deduction within stipulated period of time attracts the penal provisions contained in Sec. 276B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, The deducted TDS amount belongs to the Government and the payer acts in fiduciary capacity. Thus, it is the 4 CC.No.345-14 bounden duty to remit the TDS to the Government Account and no amount of helplessness and financial difficulty will not come in the rescue of the payer. The payer is not entitle to retain the deducted TDS and use the same for any other purpose. Thus, accused No.1 represented by accused No.2 & 3 have failed to comply with the statutory provisions without justifiable cause, hence committed the offence punishable u/s.276B, R/w.Sec.278B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
4. On presentation of the complaint, cognizance was taken and the case registered against accused persons for the offence punishable u/s. 276B, R/w.Sec.278B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In response to the summons, the accused persons appeared through their counsel and enlarged on bail.
5. The accused No.2 & 3 appeared through their counsel and got released on bail. Copies of the complaint and other documents were furnished to them. Thereafter, evidence before charge was recorded and thereafter, 5 CC.No.345-14 hearing both sides by holding that there are sufficient material to the charge were framed and read over to the accused persons. The accused persons denied the charge leveled against them and claimed for trial.
6. To prove the charge leveled against the accused persons, the complainant examined One witness as P.w.1 and got marked the documents Ex.p.1 to 6. After closure of complainant's side evidence, the statements of accused persons were recorded as provided u/s. 313 of Cr.P.C., The accused persons denied incriminatory evidence found against them. The accused No.1 to 3 not chosen to lead either oral or documentary evidence.
7. Heard the arguments of the learned counsels of the complainant and accused persons. Perused the complaint and the evidence on record. The points that arise for my consideration are :
Point No.1: Whether the complainant has proved that the accused No.1 failed to credit the deducted TDS amount of Rs. 60,78,468/- u/s.194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without justifiable reason, hence committed of the offence punishable u/s. 276B of the Income Tax Act, 1961?6 CC.No.345-14
Point No.2: If so, whether the complainant has proved that the accused No.2 & 3 are the Principal Officers of accused No.1 Company, hence, they are to be convicted for the offence punishable under section 276B of the Income Tax Act?
Point No. 3: What order?
8. My findings on the above said points are as under:
Point No.1: In the Affirmative, Point No.2: Partly in the Affirmative, Point No.2: As per the Final orders for the following:
REASONS
9. Point No.1: The complainants case is that accused No.1 legally bound to deduct the TDS and remit the same to the Govt. within fixed time limit. Sec.194C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 deals with aspect deduction of T.D.S and it says that :"Any person responsible for paying any sum to any resident (hereafter in this section referred to as the contractor) for carrying out any work (including supply of labour for carrying out any work) in pursuance of a contract between the contractor and a specified person shall, at the time of credit of such sum to the account of the contractor at 7 CC.No.345-14 the time of payment thereof in cash or by issue of cheque or draft or by any other mode, whichever is earlier, deduct an amount equal to -
i) One percent where the payment is being made or credit is being given to an individual or a Hindu undivided family;
ii) Two percent where the payment is being made or credit is being given to a person other than an individual or a Hindu Undivided family. "
Section.200 (a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which deals with effect of non remitting the deducted TDS amount says that: a) Any person deducting any sum in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this chapter shall pay within the prescribed time, the sum so deducted to the credit of the Central Government or as the Board directs. Non compliance of these statutory provisions attracts the penal contemplated under section. 201(1), 201(1A) and prosecution for the offence punishable under section.276B of the Income Tax Act, 1961
10. The accused No.1 herein is a registered company and there is no dispute over the fact that it has deducted 8 CC.No.345-14 the T.D.S as required under section 194C(1) of the Income Tax Act, out of the various contract payments amounting to Rs. 60,78,468/- pertaining to the assessment year 2011-12. The accused No.1 ought to have remitted the deducted TDS amount within twelve months from the date of deductions, but payment with interest was made on 31.03.2012. Thus there is delayed remittance of T.D.S. amount exceeding Rs.1 lakh, which amounts to commission of offence.
11. On behalf of the accused it is contended that notice issued before initiation of proceedings is not in accordance with law, hence complaint itself is not maintainable. It is argued that particular of the offence is not stated in the notice. In support of this line of argument, the learned counsel of accused relied upon the Judgement rendered by the Division Bench of our Hon'ble High Court in ITA No.2564/2005 & connected cases wherein it held that "notice issued under Section. 271 (1)© of the Act specifically mention as to whether the 9 CC.No.345-14 proceedings are initiated on the ground of concealment of income or an account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars, otherwise the notice is illegal." The learned counsel for the complainant argued that issuance of prior notice before initiation of proceeding under section. 276B is not mandatory, even otherwise, notice was issued in this case and in the notice details of the offence is mentioned.
12. In Section. 276B it is not stated that prior notice has to be issued prior to the initiation of criminal proceedings. In ITA.No.2564/2005 the Hon'ble High Court held that in the notice issued under penalty proceedings, it is to be mentioned as to on what manner the income are concealed. However, the criminal proceedings initiated under Section.276B stands in different footing. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Banwarilal Aggrawal reported in (1999) 238 ITR 461 (SC) held that "sub-section -2 of section 279 of the Income tax Act cannot be interpreted to mean that before 10 CC.No.345-14 any prosecution is launched, either a show cause notice should be given or an opportunity afforded to compound the matter; it also cannot give a right to a party to insist on the chief commissioner or the director general to make an offer of compounding before the prosecution is launched." Thus on that ground it cannot be held that complaint is not maintainable, Even otherwise, in this case, the document marked as Ex.p.3 discloses that show cause notice dated:
13.11.2013 was issued asking to submit the reason for not initiation of criminal proceedings. In the said notice details of the provisions of offence is mentioned.
13. Ex.p.1 is the sanction order and that discloses that after considering the submission made on behalf of accused No.1, the sanction was accorded to initiate the criminal proceedings. In the case of Gopal Engineering vs. Thanngaraja, reported in 1995, 211, I.T.R., 303 it is held that "there is no necessity that each and every aspect of the case must be dealt with in the authorisation."
Thus, there is also merit in the contention of the accused 11 CC.No.345-14 that there is no proper sanction to initiate the criminal proceedings against the accused persons.
14. The learned counsel of the accused by referring of the documents and the answers given by the complainant in the cross examination argued that the deducted TDS amount with interest was remitted earlier to the initiation of criminal proceedings, hence the complaint is not maintainable. This, the line of argument is not sustainable under law because the offence punishable under Section.276B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is complete when the tax deducted at source is not deposited within given time and late deposit will not absolve the accused.
15. The learned counsel of the accused persons argued in fact there was no deduction, the company was under
loss and as per mercantile case to get the bills sanctioned, the deductions were shown there is no intention to evade the tax. The learned counsel for the accused relied upon the ruling rendered by Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Union of India Vs. 12 CC.No.345-14 Pyarelal Tarachand & others, reported in 2003 Vol.264, I.T.R 525 wherein, it has held that in a case where "the assessee had shown in their return for the relevant assessment year, interest paid to the concerned depositors but due to inadvertence they had not annexed for Form No.15A along with the return and had also not filed the return form in Form No.26A, as required under Rule.37(2A) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, then it not amounts deliberate or intentional default. The learned counsel relied upon the ruling rendered by the our Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gujarat Travancore Agency Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Kerala, reported in 1989 (77) I.T.R., 456, wherein it is held that "there can be no dispute that having regard to the provisions of section.276C, which speaks of willful failure on the part of the defaulter and taking into consideration the nature of the penalty, which is punitive, no sentence can be imposed under that provision unless the element of mens rea is established." It is argued that the because of the 13 CC.No.345-14 financial constraints and adverse Government decisions the T.D.S., amount could not be deposited in time.
16. The learned counsel of the complainant argued that the financial constraints couldn't be made as grounds to evade the penal consequences. Once the TDS amount is deducted, then the deductor is legally bound to remit the same to the Government. It is argued that the accused had no right to retain the TDS amount and make use of the same for any purpose. The financial difficulty is not defence for the default. As far as not having mens-rea is concerned, it is argued that mens-rea is not prerequisite ingredient to the offence under section. 194C of the Income Tax Act. The learned counsel relied upon the ruling rendered by the Hon'ble Punjab & Harayana High Court in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Modern Motor Works, reported in 1996 ITR (220) 415 (P & H), wherein it is held that "mens-rea is not a requisite ingredient of the offence under Section.194a /200/276b of the Act. If the accused fails to make 14 CC.No.345-14 deduction of tax at source, he is liable to be punished for the said offence. If the firm accused fails to pay tax deducted at source, the prosecution and punished under Section.276b is valid." The Madras High Court in the case of Rayala Corporation Pvt., Ltd., Vs. V.M. Muthuramalingam, Income Tax Officer, reported in 1981 ITR 129 675, the Hon'ble Madras High Court has held that "Sec.276B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, attracts to the delayed payments and not only to the case of total failure to pay the tax deducted tax. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Rishikesh Balkishan Das Vs. I.D. Manchanda reported in 1987 ITR (167) 49 which is held that "Section.276B of 'the Act', also does not contain the word 'knowingly'. It provides punishment for contravention of the provisions contained in Section. 194A(1) etc., Section.194A requires the person making any payment of interest to deduct the tax at the rate in force. This liability is an absolute liability. Deficient deduction or non-deduction was a conscious act. 15 CC.No.345-14
Therefore, in a case under Section.276B read with Section.194A of the Act, mens-rea was not required."
17. Section.200 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which says that non remittance of TDS amount results in commission of offence punishable under section.276B of the Act, not says that there must be willful failure. Thus, the contention of the learned accused counsel the meansrea must be proved cannot be accepted. In the rulings relied by the counsel of the accused in view of the proving of non- existing of intentional suppression of income by the assessee.
18. In the ruling reported in 1987 ITR (167) 49 (Delhi) referred by relying on the ruling of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Maharashtra Vs. Mayer Hens George reported in AIR 1965 SC 722, at Para No.27, it is held that "offence created under section.276B of the Act excludes the application of doctrine of mensrea." Thus, the arguments of the leaned counsel of the accused that for non-proving of mensrea, the accused No.1 is entitled 16 CC.No.345-14 for acquittal is not sustainable. Even otherwise, Section. 278E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 says that if in any prosecution for any offence under this Act, which requires a culpable mental state on the part of the accused, then court shall presume the existence of such mental state, but it shall be a defence for the accused to prove the fact that he has no such mental state with respect to the act charged as an offence in that prosecution. In the case on hand, there is no evidence to the effect that there was no culpable state of mind on the part of the accused No.1 in the failure to remit the TDS within time.
19. In conclusion, the defence stated above, not absolves the accused No.1 and in the result, it has to be held that accused No.1 committed the offence punishable u/s.276B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Section. 278AA of the Income Tax Act, says that "Notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of Section. 276A, 276AB or Section.276B, no person shall be punished for any failure referred to in the said provisions, if he proves that there 17 CC.No.345-14 was reasonable cause for such failure. This section provides a window for the accused to escape from the panel consequence by proving that he had reasonable cause for the non depositing of deducted TDS amount, within time limit.
20. Here in this case, contention is taken that financial constraints resulted in not depositing of T.D.S., amount, but except putting suggestions no material is produced to substantiate the fact. The sanction order marked as Ex.p.1 discloses that before the sanctioning authority written submission was made that the company was facing severe financial constraints due to Government decisions in not realizing in due on time which resulted in default with the Bank and thereby their account has resulted in classifying as Non Performing Asset. The bank had frozen the account and not releasing any realization for the company use, which resulted in paralysing the operations of the company. The company could not pay even the office rent resulting in the compulsory eviction 18 CC.No.345-14 from the premises. The company has not retained any Government funds unduly as the creditors themselves were not paid and hence not retained the TDS amount from them. The TDS entries were made on mercantile basis to close the balance sheet. The accused No.1 not produced any material to substantiate the contention referred above. Mere taking up the contention is not amounting to offering reasonable cause for the failure to remit the deducted TDS. Had the accused No.1 proved that its accounts were freezed by the bankers, hence the deducted T.D.S., amount could not be transmitted to the account of the Government, then it could have been considered as sufficient reasons.
21. As argued by the learned counsel of the complainant, for the financial requirement of the company, the deducted TDS amount cannot be used. There is no evidence to the effect that entry regarding TDS deduction was made in the balance sheet, on mercantile basis. The deductor of TDS amount is only a trustee and he had no 19 CC.No.345-14 right to utilize the said amount for its other requirement. Thus, the court is of the considered view that accused No.1 failed to shown the justifiable reason for the failure to deposit the deducted TDS within time so as to claim the acquittal.
22. Thus, on appreciation of oral and documents evidence and the defence of the accused No.1, the court is of the considered view that complainant proved that accused No.1 by not depositing the deducted TDS amount within time, committed the offence punishable u/s. 276B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in affirmative.
23. Point No.2: In the discussion made supra, it is held that accused No.1 did commit the offence punishable u/s. 276B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The punishment awardable is substantive punishment i.e., 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. The earlier it was the case that a Limited 20 CC.No.345-14 Company cannot be prosecuted under Section. 276B since it cannot be imprisoned, but in such case, its directors and officers may be prosecuted and punished in the circumstances set out in section.278B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The said concept is now changed in view of the ruling of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Javali Vs. Mahajan Borewell reported in 1997(8) SCC 72 wherein it is held that "are liable to be proceeded against and punished are : if an offence is committed by a company, the persons who
i) The company which includes firm;
ii) Every person who at the time the offence who committed, was in charge of and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business;
iii) Any director (who in relation to a firm partner), manager, secretary or other officer of the company with whose consent or Connivance or because of neglect attributable to whom the offence has been committed;"
24. The only harmonious construction that can be given to Sec.276B is that the mandatory sentence of imprisonment and fine is to be imposed where it can be imposed i.e., on persons coming under categories (ii) & 21 CC.No.345-14
(iii) above, but where it cannot be imposed is on a company, fine will be the only punishment. A firm is liable to be prosecuted under this section."
25. Here, the complainant's case is that accused No.2 in the capacity as Managing Director and accused No.3 as Director are directly responsible for the acts of the accused No.1, hence both are liable to be convicted. The accused No.3 contended that she is not in charge of for the conduct of the business. The learned counsel of the complainant relied upon the rulings rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Madhumilan Syntex Ltd., & others Vs. Union of India & another, reported in (2007) 11 S.C.C., 297, wherein it is held that "to hold a person responsible under the Act, it must be shown that he/she is a "Principal Officer" under Section. 2(35) of the Act or is "in charge of " and "responsible for" the business of the company or firm." The ratio laid down in the above ruling is that to hold a person liable for the act of the company it must be shown the either he or she is the 22 CC.No.345-14 "Principle Officer" or "in charge of" & responsible for the business of the company. Here, there is no material to the effect that accused No.3 is the in charge of functioning of accused No.1 Company. Sec.2 (35)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 says that any person connected with the management or administration of the local authority, company, association or body upon whom the assessing officer has served a notice of his intention of treating him as the principal officer thereof. In the complaint, it is stated that the perusal of the notice dated: 18.11.2013 marked as Ex.p.4 discloses that the said notice was given to accused No.2 only and it stated during the period relevant to the Financial Year 2010-11, the accused No.2 was responsible for the conduct of the business of the company and was in charge of company, hence, it is intended to treat him as "Principal Officer of the company"
under the provisions of Section. 2(35)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Issuance of notice u/s. 2 (35)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is mandatory to contend that a 23 CC.No.345-14 person is the principal officer of the juristic person. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Homi Phiroze Ranina Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2003) 263 I.T.R., 634, it is held that "there must be credible material to show their active involvement in the conduct and management of the business of the firm."
26. In the case on hand, there is no material to the effect that the accused No.3 is responsible for the day to day conduct of accused No.1. There is no dispute over the fact that accused No.2 was in charge of conduct and business of the accused No.1 Company at the relevant point of time. Thus, accused No.2 is only liable for the conviction and not the accused No.3. Accordingly, this point No.2 is answered partly in affirmative.
27. Point No.3: In view of my findings on Points No.1 & 2, I proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER By exercising the power conferred u/s.248 (2) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.1 & 2 are convicted for the 24 CC.No.345-14 offence punishable u/s.276B, R/w.Sec.278B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
By exercising the power conferred u/s.248 (1) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.3 is acquitted from the charge of offence punishable u/s.276B, R/w.Sec.278B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Bail bond of accused No.3 shall stand cancelled. To hear regarding sentence.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, directly on computer, typed by her corrected and rd then pronounced by me, in open court on this the 3 day of August-2017.) PRESIDING OFFICER.
25 CC.No.345-14ORDER ON SENTENCE
28. The accused No.2 submitted that the loss in the business of the accused No.1 company led to the non deposit of T.D.S., amount. It is submitted that accused No.2 is mentally disturbed, because of the loss in the business. The awarding of imprisonment will put him great hardship and will come in the way of revival of accused No.1 Company. It is argued that the TDS amounts with interest were deposited before initiation of criminal proceedings.
29. The learned counsel of the complainant argued that the amount deducted from third person was used for other purpose. This aspect cannot be viewed lightly and prayed to award maximum punishment.
30. The offence punishable under section. 276B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is 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. The material on record substantiates the 26 CC.No.345-14 contention of the accused No.2 that financial constraints resulted in non-deposit of deducted TDS amount. There is no allegation that accused No.1 is irregular in paying the taxes other than the case on hand. Thus, the court is of the considered view that the accused No.1 & 2 is entitled for minimum possible sentence. Three month's rigorous punishment and fine is the minimum punishment and the court is not having the discretion in reducing the sentence further. Thus, the accused No.2 shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and fine of Rs. 5,000/- for having committed the offence punishable u/s.276B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The accused No.1 is the company and it shall pay the fine of Rs. 5,000/- Accordingly I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The accused No.1 is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable u/s.276B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.27 CC.No.345-14
The accused No.2 shall under rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay the fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the accused No.2 shall under go simple imprisonment for a period of 30 days for the offence punishable u/s.276B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The accused No.2 shall pay the fine imposed on accused No.1.
Bail bond of accused No. 2 shall stand cancelled. (Dictated to the Stenographer, directly on computer, typed by her corrected and then rd pronounced by me, in open court on this the 3 day of August-2017.) PRESIDING OFFICER.
ANNEXURE:
ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT: Witnesses:
P.w.1 C. V. Narayana Reddy.
Documents:-
Ex.p.1 Sanction Order, Ex.p.2 Summary of Date & Amounts, Ex.p.3 Copy of Notice dated: 13.11.2013, Ex.p.4 Copy of Notice dated: 18.11.2013, Ex.p.5 Reply, Ex.p.6 Complaint, Ex.p.6 (a) Sig. of P.w.1.28 CC.No.345-14
MATERIAL OBJECTS: Nil.
ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED: Witnesses & Documents: Nil.
(SHANTHANNA ALVA M.) PRESIDING OFFICER, SPL. COURT FOR ECONOMIC OFFENCES, BANGALORE.29 CC.No.345-14
(Judgement pronounced in open court vide separate order) ORDER By exercising the power conferred u/s.248 (2) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.1 & 2 are convicted for the offence punishable u/s.276B, R/w.Sec.278B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
By exercising the power conferred u/s.248 (1) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.3 is acquitted from the charge of offence punishable u/s.276B, R/w.Sec.278B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Bail bond of accused No.3 shall stand cancelled.
To hear regarding sentence.
PRESIDING OFFICER.
(Orders regarding sentence pronounced in open court vide separate order) ORDER The accused No.1 is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable u/s.276B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The accused No.2 shall under rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay the fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the accused No.2 shall under go simple imprisonment for a period of 30 days for the offence punishable u/s.276B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The accused No.2 shall pay the fine imposed on accused No.1.
Bail bond of accused No. 2 shall stand cancelled.
PRESIDING OFFICER.