Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: 276(b) in The Income Tax Officer vs M/S. Panancea Hospital Pvt Ltd on 12 July, 2024Matching Fragments
1. The Income Tax Department has filed these appeals under Section 377 of Cr.P.C. against the sentence on the ground of its inadequacy. The details of these appeals are as under:
Sl. Crl Appeal Trial Court C.C.NO. with Offence Sentence No (H.C) name judgment Date 1 1339/2020 Spl. Court 148/2018 dtd. Sec 276 B 25,000/-
for 19/10/2019 R/w 278B
economic of I.T Act.
offences at 1961 with
Bengaluru Rule 30
2 925/2021 Same 147/2018 Same 25,000/-
Dtd.
19/10/2019
3 950/2021 Same 149/2018 dtd. Sec 276B 25,000/-
19/10/2019
4 954/2021 Same 101/2018 dtd. Sec 276 B 20,000/-
16/11/2019 R/w 278B
of I.T Act.
1961 with
Rule 30
5 1207/2021 Same 74/2019 dtd. Sec 276B 20,000/-
19/12/2020
6 1222/2021 Same 68/2018 dtd. Sec 276B 20,000/-
23/10/2020
7 1223/2021 Same 77/2018 dtd. Sec 276B 1,00,000/-
15/02/2020
8 1224/2021 Same 86/2018 dtd. Sec 276B 25,000/-
28/10/2020
9 1229/2021 Same 84/2018 dtd. Sec 276B 25,000/-
28/10/2020
10 1319/2021 Same 81/2019 Sec 276B 5,000/-
Dtd.
19/03/2020
11 1326/2021 Same 78/2019 dtd. Sec 276 B -
19/03/2020 R/w 278B
of I.T Act.
12 1330/2021 Same 77/2019 dtd Sec 276 B 5,000/-
19/03/2020 R/w 278B
of I.T Act.
13 1337/2021 Same 104/2019 Sec 276 B 10,000/-
Dtd. R/w 278B
19/03/2020 of I.T Act.
14 672/2022 Same 76/2019 Sec 276 B 20,000/-
Dtd.
19/12/2020
15 810/2022 Same 50/2019 Sec 276 B 10,000/-
Dtd. R/w 278B
16/09/2021 of I.T Act.
16 898/2022 Same 87/2019 Sec 276 B 20,000/-
Dtd.
16/10/2021
17 2233/2022 Same 85/2018 Sec 276 B 25,000/-
Dtd.
28/10/2020
18 2245/2022 Same 128/2018 Sec 276 B 20,000/-
Dtd.
28/10/2020
19 1913/2023 Same 90/2019 Sec 276 B 10,000/-
Dtd.
30/05/2023
20 2104/2023 Same 89/2019 Sec 276 B 10,000/-
Dtd.
25/09/2020
2. The judgment of conviction and order on
16. In the said decision the coordinate Bench has concluded that the words appearing in clause (b) - `any other court' brings within its sweep `Special Courts' even though they may be presided over by the officers of the rank of a Magistrate.
17. The said appeal, Crl.A. No. 1420/2003 has been filed in the year 2003 against the order on sentence dated 11.04.2003 passed in C.C. No. 1059/1999 by the Special Court of Economic Offences, Bengaluru, for offence under Section 276-B read with Section 278-B of the I.T. Act, 1961. Since the said appeal is filed in the year 2003, Section 377 of Cr.P.C., as it stood prior to amendment by Amendment Act No. 25/2005 was applicable. The Court ought not to have considered the aspect of maintainability by taking into consideration the amended provisions of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 377 of Cr.P.C. as amended by Act No. 25/2005. Apart from that, the conclusion that the words in clause (b) `any other Court' brings within its sweep Special Courts even though they may be presided over by the officer of the rank of a Magistrate, in my view, is not proper for the following reasons: