Delhi H.C : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned counsel for the respondent. By this criminal revision, the petitioner seeks to challenge the judgment and order of the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate dt. 4th April, 1997, whereby the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate declined to discharge the petitioner for the alleged offence under s. 276B of the IT Act, 1961.

High Court Of Delhi

A.K. Verma vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner

Section 276B

R.S. Sodhi, J.

Crl. Rev. No. 181 of 1997

25th August, 2000

Counsel Appeared

S.K. Khurana, for the Petitioner : R.D. Jolly, for the Respondent

JUDGMENT

R.S. SODHI, J. :

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned counsel for the respondent. By this criminal revision, the petitioner seeks to challenge the judgment and order of the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate dt. 4th April, 1997, whereby the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate declined to discharge the petitioner for the alleged offence under s. 276B of the IT Act, 1961. It is the case of the petitioner that this section implies that the payment has actually been made, whereas in his case, the petitioner’s books of accounts shows that the amount is payable. He submits that a sum of Rs. 86,340 credited to the account of the Central Government on 9th Nov., 1982, was a mistake and was not in fact credited on account of any payment having been made and, therefore, no offence under s. 276B is prima facie made out. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that there are various methods of accounting, mercantile system being one where even the amounts payable are taken as having been paid and it is on this account that the petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs. 86,340 into the Government treasury on the amount having accrued and payable on account of royalty. Therefore, it does not lie with the petitioner at this stage to say that no offence has been committed under s. 276B of the Act. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent, it appears that there are disputed questions of fact, which certainly require adjudication. It cannot be said that the charge framed is bad in law. In this view of the matter, the order dt. 4th April, 1997, cannot be faulted with. Crl. Rev. No. 181 of 1997 is dismissed.

[Citation : 248 ITR 364]

Malcare WordPress Security