Delhi District Court
Bal Kishan Jha vs Income Tax Office (Ito) on 12 March, 2018
1
IN THE COURT OF SH.NARINDER KUMAR
SPECIAL JUDGE2:NDPS ACT
(CENTRAL DISTRICT):TIS HAZARI COURT:DELHI
Decided on: 12.03.2018
CA No. : 98/18 of 28.02.2018
Bal Kishan Jha,
M/s Viraj Exports Pvt. Ltd.,
7/8, Roop Nagar,
Delhi 110007
Also at:
E106, Nehru Vihar,
Delhi .....Appellant
Versus
Income Tax Office (ITO)
Through
Sh. Narinder Juyal,
ITO Ward - 78 (3),
Income Tax Department,
Laxmi Nagar, District Centre,
Delhi110092 .....Respondent
JUDGMENT
Appellant herein has been facing trial before learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for an offence under Section 276B of Income Tax Act (hereinafter 2 referred to as "the Act") on the accusation that after deduction of Tax Deducted at Source for the financial year 20092010, said amount was not deposited in the account of Government within the prescribed period. Company M/s Viraj Exports Pvt. Ltd. was also held guilty for the offence read with Section 278B of the Act in respect of said financial year, vide judgment dated 10.01.2018.
2. On the point of sentence, vide order dated 30.01.2018, Trial Court instead of sentencing the accused appellant to imprisonment, ordered for his release on probation on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/ with one surety in the like amount for a period of six months and also directed to pay Rs.25,000/ by way of cost of litigation.
3. Learned counsel for complainant - respondent submits that order on sentence passed by Learned Trial Court is not in consonance with the law as accusedappellant could not be released on probation and as such order on sentence deserves to be set aside. In support of his submission, learned counsel has referred to provisions of Section 397, 399 and powers available under Section 401 CrPC.
34. In the course of arguments, learned counsel for accusedappellant does not dispute that under the Act, it stand specifically provided under Section 292A that for any violation of any provision, unless a convict was less than 18 years of age, he or she cannot be released on probation of good conduct.
5. In view of the submission put forth by learned counsel for the complainant - respondent, which is not being disputed by learned counsel for accusedappellant and in view of the provisions of Section 397, 399 and 401 CrPC, Court deems it a fit case to set aside the order on sentence and remand the matter to learned Trial Court to pass order on sentence afresh in accordance with law, after providing opportunity of being heard to both the sides, on this point.
It is made clear that on passing of the impugned order on sentence qua the accused appellant, in case of any grievance, accusedappellant shall be at liberty to file appeal against judgment of conviction dated 10.01.2018 and fresh order on sentence.
6. As a result, appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid directions to the Learned Trial Court.
7. Parties to appear before the Trial Court on 4 14.03.2018.
8. Trial Court Record be returned. Appeal file be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed Announced in the open Court NARINDER by NARINDER KUMAR on 12th day of March, 2018 KUMAR Date: 2018.03.14 12:40:11 +0530 (NARINDER KUMAR) SPECIAL JUDGE, NDPS - 02 (CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI