9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (5) TMI 483 - HC - Income TaxOffence and Prosecution- willful attempt to evade tax. Conviction of women. Held that- since the respondents were women and were aged 47 years and 44 years in the year 1995 who must have attained the age of senior citizens by now no illegality had been committed by the court below in giving the benefit of the probation of offenders Act in spite of their conviction.
Issues:
1. Conviction under sections 276C and 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. 3. Authority to file appeal under section 377 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 4. Liability of partners of a firm under the Income-tax Act. Analysis: Issue 1: Conviction under sections 276C and 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 The case involved a complaint against a partnership firm and its partners under sections 276C and 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The trial court convicted the accused but released them on probation of good conduct. The appellant filed an appeal seeking enhancement of the sentence. The High Court dismissed the appeal, leading to a further appeal to the apex court. The apex court set aside the order and remanded the case back to the High Court for fresh disposal, emphasizing the bar against invoking the Probation of Offenders Act for offenses under the Income-tax Act. Issue 2: Benefit of Probation of Offenders Act The High Court initially granted the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act to the convicted individuals. However, the apex court highlighted the prohibition in the Income-tax Act against applying the Probation of Offenders Act for offenses under the Act. The case was remanded for fresh consideration by the High Court in light of this legal aspect. Issue 3: Authority to file appeal under section 377 of the Criminal Procedure Code The respondents challenged the authority of the appellant to file the appeal under section 377 of the Criminal Procedure Code. They argued that the appeal should have been filed by the public prosecutor under the directions of the Government of India. The respondents contended that the standing counsel of the Department did not have the necessary authority to file the appeal. They relied on a Supreme Court decision to support their argument regarding the locus standi of the public prosecutor to file an appeal. Issue 4: Liability of partners of a firm under the Income-tax Act The respondents also raised the issue of the liability of partners of a firm under the Income-tax Act. They argued that partners cannot be made liable for offenses under the Act unless specific requirements under section 278B are met. They emphasized the need for allegations in the complaint regarding the partners' roles in the firm's business conduct at the time of the offense. The absence of such allegations led the respondents to seek the quashing of their conviction. In conclusion, the judgment addressed multiple legal issues, including the application of the Probation of Offenders Act, the authority to file appeals, and the liability of partners under the Income-tax Act. The apex court's directions necessitated a fresh consideration of the case by the High Court, emphasizing the legal intricacies involved in the interpretation and application of relevant laws.
|
