Mandatory imprisonment and fine under the Income-tax Act do not make fine compulsory for a firm where imprisonment cannot be imposed.

Where prosecution under sections 276C(1)(i) and 277(i) of the Income-tax Act required mandatory imprisonment and fine, the Andhra Pradesh HC held that the inability to impose imprisonment on a firm did not by itself make fine compulsory. Relying on prior decisions, the Court treated the position as settled and found no basis to interfere with the order under challenge. The challenge to the acquittal therefore failed, and the impugned order remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a firm, against which prosecution had been launched for offences under sections 276C(1)(i) and 277(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, could be compulsorily visited with a sentence of fine when no sentence of imprisonment could be imposed on it.

Analysis: The sentence prescribed for the offences was of a mandatory character as to imprisonment and fine. The Court held that the inability to impose imprisonment on a firm did not by itself create a legal obligation to impose fine on the firm. Relying on prior decisions, the Court treated the question as settled and found no ground to interfere with the order under challenge.

Conclusion: The firm could not be compulsorily punished with fine in the circumstances, and the appeal failed.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the acquittal did not succeed, and the impugned order remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statutory punishment is mandatory imprisonment and fine, the impossibility of imposing imprisonment on a firm does not, by itself, make the imposition of fine compulsory on the firm.

---