9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (3) TMI 72X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be laid down by the trial court on an application of the petitioner. - - - - - Dated:- 14-3-2003 - Judge(s) : ADARSH KUMAR GOEL JUDGMENT ADARSH KUMAR GOEL J.- The petitioner filed the income-tax return for the assessment year 1975-76 on March 10, 1976, in respect of which an assessment was framed on February 26, 1977. The petitioner filed a revised return on October 20, 1978, in response to a notice under section 148 of the Income tax Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act"), and thereafter, assessment was framed on October 16, 1979. Against the order of the Income-tax Officer, the petitioner preferred an appeal which was accepted on November 30, 1974, but on further appeal by the Department, the Tribunal vide order dated May 5,1987, decide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aintainable. I have considered the rival submissions. No doubt, there cannot be a hard and fast rule to hold when delay is a ground for holding that the prosecution is vitiated. The extent of sentence, nature of offence and circumstances of the case have to be taken into account. The maximum punishment for the offence alleged (concealment of income of Rs. 20,000) is three years under section 276C. Though the cause of action for initiating prosecution is furnished on the date when income is concealed or on the date when concealment becomes known to the Department. Once proceedings are finalised, the prosecution has to be commenced within a reasonable period. Chapter XXXVI of the Criminal Procedure Code provides for limitation for taking ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed, if there is undue delay. In P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka [2002] 4 SCC 578, a seven-judge Bench of the apex court held: "It must be left to the judicious discretion of the court seized of an individual case to find out from the totality of circumstances of a given case if the quantum of time consumed up to a given point of time amounted to violation of article 21 of the Constitution and if so, then to terminate the particular proceedings, and if not, then to proceed ahead. The test is whether the proceedings or trial has remained pending for such a length of time that the inordinate delay can legitimately be called oppressive and unwarranted." It was held that there cannot be a hard and fast rule as all situations cannot be f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
