TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (3) TMI 509
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....litan Magistrate (ACMM), New Delhi in so far as the petitioner is concerned. 2. The aforementioned complaint states that Mohta Electro Steel Limited (MESL) was engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of carbon steel strips. MESL filed its return of income on July 31, 1983, for the assessment year 1983-84 declaring nil total income. It is stated that the return of income as well as its verification was made and signed by accused No. 2, K.K. Mohta (petitioner herein) in his capacity as managing director of MESL. Assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1983-84 were initiated by the Income-tax Officer ("ITO") by issuing notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. The notices were accompanied by a questionnaire callin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mmissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), both MESL and the Revenue preferred appeals before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ("ITAT"). Among the points considered by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was whether the amount paid by MESL to HSP for the work done by HSP at the rate of Rs. 2,500 per metric tonne was reasonable or not. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal observed that no exercise was undertaken for ascertaining the cost of service per metric tonne and adding to it reasonable return on the investments which in turn would help ascertaining whether the amount paid to HSP was reasonable or not. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal analysed the figures of profit before ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ioner was arrayed as accused No. 2 in the complaint and described as managing director, MESL. In paragraph 2 it was stated that the petitioner was looking after the day-to-day affairs of the MESL in his capacity as the managing director. A reference was made to the assessment order as well as the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). 8. It appears that on December 4, 2003, the learned ACMM passed a detailed order on charge. While it was held that no prima facie case was made out against accused No. 3 M. C. Aggarwal and it was held that as regards accused Nos. 1 and 2, i.e., the MESL and the petitioner respectively, "From the testimony of PW1, PW2 and PW3 and considering all the documents filed on record and even after taking....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itioner filed the present petition on August 28, 2006. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appeal of MESL against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was partly allowed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal showed that there was no deliberate intention on the part of MESL to furnish inaccurate particulars of its income for the assessment year 1983-84 thereby evading the income-tax, penalty or interest chargeable or impossible under the Act. It was submitted that inasmuch as the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was available to the learned ACMM even at the stage of the order on charge, the learned ACMM erred in holding that a prima facie case was made out against the petitioner for the offenc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....epend on the facts of a particular case. In other words, the merits of the case would necessarily have to be examined in order to determine if interference under section 482 is warranted. 14. In the present case, the facts are not disputed. While the complaint refers to proceedings up to the stage of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), a few months thereafter the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal passed a detailed order partly allowing the MESL's appeal and dismissing the Revenue's appeal. Clearly there the issue whether payment made by MESL to HSP was excessive was a debatable one. In partly allowing the MESL's appeal, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal disagreed with the view taken by the Assessing Officer, on what the reasonable rate....