2005 (11) TMI 67

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... passed by the Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Indore, in Crl. Appeal No. 81 of 1998 against the conviction of the applicants and the sentence imposed on them by the learned Third Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore. Applicant No. 1, Rameshwar Prasad Sunderlal, was a partnership firm and applicant Nos. 2 (since decd.) and 3 were the partners of the aforesaid firm. The other partners o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e found that the delay was wilful and the applicants were convicted under sections 276CC and 278B and the sentence of fine of Rs. 2,000 was imposed on applicant No. 1 firm while the applicant Nos. 2 and 3 were sentenced to 3 months imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2,000. The applicants preferred an appeal against their conviction, but their appeal was rejected and the order of conviction of sentence p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t has held that since the Income-tax Department did not find the reason for delay satisfactory and imposed penalty, therefore, the delay was wilful. The learned trial court was not correct in basing conviction on the findings of the taxing authority. The considerations for imposing penalty and those for prosecution are quite different. Prem Prakash Saxena (PW 1) has admitted in paragraph 7 of his ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rch 11, 1998, that tax was insufficient and remaining tax was deposited with the return which was filed delayed, therefore, it cannot be said that intention of the applicants was not to cause delay. According to the learned trial court, if the entire tax had been deposited earlier and then the return had been filed after a delay then. it could have been inferred that the applicants did not intend ....