Delhi H.C : The proceedings in the complaint case entitled Ranjan Singh, Asst. CIT vs. Sahni Silk Mills (P) Ltd. & Ors. under s. 276CC r/w s. 278B pending in the Court of learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Tis Hazari Courts be quashed.

High Court Of Delhi

R.L. Sahni & Ors. vs. R. Singh, Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax & Anr.

Sections 276CC, 278B

Asst. Year 1986-87

R.S. Sodhi, J.

Crl. Misc. No. 800 of 1991

21st May, 2001

Counsel Appeared

P.P. Malhotra with Shailender Sharma, for the Petitioners : R.D. Jolly, for the Respondent

JUDGMENT

R.S. SODHI, J. :

Criminal Misc. (Main) No. 800/1991 is filed with a prayer that the proceedings in the complaint case entitled Ranjan Singh, Asst. CIT vs. Sahni Silk Mills (P) Ltd. & Ors. under s. 276CC r/w s. 278B pending in the Court of learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Tis Hazari Courts be quashed.

2. It is contended before me by learned counsel that for the asst. yr. 1986-87, return was required to be filed latest by 30th of June, 1986. However, the return was filed on 25th May, 1988 and, therefore, Department proceeded by filing a complaint initiating prosecution under s. 276CC r/w s. 278B. The learned counsel draws my attention to proviso to s. 276CC where it is mentioned that for any assessment year commencing on or after the 1st day of April, 1975, if the tax payable by him on the total income determined on regular assessment, as reduced by the advance tax, if any, paid, and any tax deducted at source, does not exceed three thousand rupees, prosecution would not be launched.

Learned counsel submits that during the pendency of this appeal, the appellate authority has assessed the income as minus 9,030 and further directed a refund of Rs. 40,642 for the year 198687 to the firm Sahni Silk Mills (P) Ltd. 42-A, Friends Colony, New Delhi. In view thereof, he further submits that no proceedings could have been initiated since there is no tax payable much less not exceeding Rs. 3,000. At this time, Mr. Jolly appears on behalf of the Department. He submits that a week’s time be given to him to ascertain whether the appellate order is under challenge before the Tribunal.

3. Having heard learned counsel, I am not inclined to adjourn this matter further. This petition has been pending in this Court since 5th April, 1991. There is nothing on record to show that the appellate order is under challenge. I am, therefore, satisfied that no complaint, in the given circumstances, could have been filed. Criminal Misc. (Main) No. 800/1991 is allowed and the complaint is dismissed.

[Citation : 254 ITR 292]

Scroll to Top
Malcare WordPress Security