2009 (12) TMI 640

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f the assessee to evade the payment of tax. 
SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH, J. Judgment: Samarendra Pratap Singh J.- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the par-ties. 2. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated March 30, 2006, passed by the Presiding Officer, Special Court, Economic Offences, Patna, in Complaint Case No. 336C of 2006 whereby cognizance has been taken of the offence under section 276C(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which relates to wilful evasion of tax. The provision of section 276C(2) states that if a person wilfully attempts in any manner whatsoever to evade the pay-ment of any tax, penalty or interest under the Act, he would be criminally prosecuted, apart from the penalty, etc. 3. The petitioner submits .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ion had already deposited a sum of Rs. 50,000 on January 12, 2006, and thereafter he paid a sum of Rs.4,472 on February 22, 2006, Rs. 45,000 on February 16, 2006, Rs. 30,000 on May 12, 2006, Rs. 25,000 on November 8, 2006, Rs. 1,00,000 on Decem-ber 15, 2006, Rs. 1,85,781 on December 16, 2006 and Rs. 40,724 on Decem-ber 18, 2006, total a sum of Rs. 5,20,977. 4. On this basis learned counsel submits that soon after the notice dated January 10, 2006, under section 276C(2), the petitioner made a part payment of Rs. 50,000 on January 12, 2006. Even before the expiry period of January 20, 2006, in the aforesaid notice dated January 10, 2006, he filed a petition on January 13, 2006 for extension of time. The petitioner had already depo-sited a p .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 50,000 even prior to the application dated January 13, 2006 praying for time to deposit the entire amount. He had deposited a good sum even before passing of the impugned order dated March 30, 2006. The assessee deposited further a sum of Rs. 45,000 and Rs. 4,472 on February 6, 2006 and February 22, 2006 apart from Rs. 50,000 on January 12, 2006. It would appear from the order dated January 9, 2007 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of tax, Circle, Patna, that the petitioner had deposited the entire amount with interest and thus it is doubtful whether the petitioner has wil-fully evaded the payment of tax. 8. The tax court in the case of ITO v. Chiranjilal Cotton Industries reported in [2002] 254 ITR 181 (P&H) held that if prosecution und .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X