Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2021 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (12) TMI 1340 - HC - Income TaxProceedings initiated u/s 276C(2) - main contention before this Court that the amount has already been paid. Therefore, there cannot be any prosecution - HELD THAT - These are all factual aspects which cannot be gone into at this stage. It is the matter for evidence before the trial Court. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that compounding petition is pending before the authority and the authority has to take decision immediately. Be that as it may. If the compound petition is pending before the authority, the authority shall act as per law and take decision within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order. In such a view of the matter the Criminal Original Petition is liable to be dismissed. As far as the trial is concerned, the presence of the Petitioner is dispensed with except for receiving copies, answering the charges and questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or any other date that may be fixed by the trial court.
Issues:
Proceedings under Section 276C(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 initiated against the petitioners to be quashed. Analysis: The petitioners sought to quash the proceedings initiated under Section 276C(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The main contention raised was that the amount in question had already been paid, thus arguing against the need for prosecution. Additionally, it was pointed out that full interest, as directed by the Assessing Officer, had also been paid, a fact allegedly overlooked before initiating the case. However, the judge noted that these were factual aspects that should be addressed during the trial, indicating that such matters were not within the scope of the current proceedings. The judge acknowledged the pending compounding petition and directed the authority to make a decision within two months from the date of the order. Consequently, the judge concluded that the Criminal Original Petition was liable to be dismissed. Regarding the trial proceedings, the judge dispensed with the physical presence of the petitioner except for specific instances such as receiving copies, responding to charges, or participating in questioning under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This decision suggests that the petitioner's physical presence may not be required for all stages of the trial, except when necessary for key procedural steps. Ultimately, the judge dismissed the Criminal Original Petition and ordered the closure of connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions. The judgment highlights the importance of addressing factual matters during trial, the necessity of following legal procedures, and the role of the authority in making timely decisions on pending petitions.
|