2013 (10) TMI 1027

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....holders, as per the provisions of section 194 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1988-89 stating that the first accused is a public limited company functioning at Karamadai, the second and third accused are the managing directors and administrative manager, respectively, of the first accused company and they are in charge of the affairs and responsible for the conduct of the business of the first accused. The complainant further submits that M/s. Ramakrishna Steel Industries Ltd., Karamadai, a public limited company, has paid a dividend on September 25, 1987, relating to the period ending on March 31, 1987. The tax deducted on September 25, 1987, in the case of G. Narayanaswamy Naidu has been paid into the Government accou....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ly failed to remit the tax deducted at source on dividend payments into the Government of India account within the time allowed as per rule 30(1)(b) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The first accused has by this default ; committed an offence punishable under section 276B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The second and third accused, being the managing director and administrative manager, respectively, of the first accused, at the material time, were in charge of the affairs and were responsible for the conduct of the business of the first accused have committed an offence punishable under section 176(b) read with section 278B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The complainant, therefore, submits that the accused have wilfully committed the offence ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ate dismissed the said complaint and assigned the reason that the complainant had been given sufficient opportunities to prove their case but the complainant had failed to do so. Hence, the complaint was dismissed under section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and all the accused were discharged. Subsequently, the complainant had filed Cr. P. C. No. of 2002, on the file of District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, but rejected the case in limine. Thereafter, the above revision has been filed by the complainant. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the accused have failed to remit the income-tax deducted at source into the Government of India account from dividend paid to the shareholders and thereby committed ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l remedy. If the complainant could be given an opportunity, the accused would not be prejudiced. Hence, the learned counsel has prayed to restore the case, on the file of the trial court and to dispose the same on the merits. The learned counsel for the accused submits that 23 hearings were given to the complainant to produce the documentary evidence but the complainant could not produce the same for about two years. Therefore, there is a delay and lapse on the side of the complainant. Therefore, the complaint was dismissed and the accused were discharged. The learned counsel further submits that the assessment was made in the year of 1988-89 and as such about 22 years have lapsed. At this juncture, the case may not be remitted back to t....