9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2003 (12) TMI 16 - HC - Income TaxConviction - petitioner has been convicted for offence under section 276CC - in view of the fact that time had been given by the Department for submitting the returns and accordingly, the petitioner has submitted his returns, no offence is made out. Hence, these revisions have to be allowed and the conviction be set aside.
Issues: Conviction under section 276CC of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Analysis: The judgment involves a case where the petitioner was convicted under section 276CC of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. Appeals were filed against this conviction, and the Additional District Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction but reduced the sentence. The High Court, sitting in revision, was called upon to review the correctness, legality, and propriety of the orders passed by the lower courts. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, a medical practitioner, had not submitted income tax returns for the years 1983 to 1988, leading to multiple cases being filed against him. The High Court did not accept the petitioner's contention that an appeal against the adjudication order had been allowed by the appellate authority, and the quash petitions were dismissed. The new Presiding Officer convicted the accused under section 276CC, although the facts were identical in nature in different cases. The accused had filed a petition for extension of time to submit his returns, which was allowed by the Department. The court accepted this plea and acquitted the accused, stating that no offence was made out since the Department had granted time for submitting the returns, and the petitioner had complied. The High Court, after reviewing the records and the order, found that no offence was established, and hence, allowed the revisions, setting aside the conviction. The fine amount paid by the petitioner was ordered to be returned. In conclusion, the High Court allowed the revisions, emphasizing that the petitioner had been acquitted based on the extension of time granted by the Department for submitting income tax returns. The judgment highlighted the importance of complying with legal procedures and the significance of timely submission of required documents to avoid legal consequences.
|
