2025 (10) TMI 1065

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Delhi. Hence, the Leave to Appeal is sought. 2. For the reasons stated in the Leave Petition, the same is allowed and disposed of accordingly. CRL.A........./2025 (to be numbered) 3. A Criminal Appeal under Section 378(2) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C.") has been filed to challenge the Judgment of the Ld. ASJ dated 14.08.2019 in Criminal Appeal No.17/2019 whereby the Conviction of the Respondent Company for the offence under Section 276B read with Section 278B Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "IT Act") and Sentenced to fine of Rs.25 lakhs by the Ld. ACMM vide his judgement dated 17.12.2018, has been set aside. 4. The facts in brief are that a Complaint through Pushpa Rawat ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....id witnesses, Charges under Section 276-B read with Section 278-B IT Act were framed against the Respondent No.1 Company and Shri Sumit Arora, Director of the Company vide Order dated 26.02.2018. 10. The Order of framing of Charge was challenged before the Court of Sessions which vide Order dated 02.06.2018, discharged Shri Sumit Arora, Director of the Company. 11. After post Charge evidence, statement of Respondent No.1 Company through Authorized Representative was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, wherein all the incriminating evidence put to him, was denied and it was asserted that the Company has been falsely implicated in this case. 12. The Ld. ACMM after considering the entire evidence and vide Judgment dated 09.10.2019 held....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ting the Respondent, is liable to be set aside. 18. The Appellant has placed reliance on Madhumilan Syntex and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors. AIR 2007 SC (148), Standard Chartered Bank and Ors. Vs. Directorate of Enforcement & Ors. (2005) 4 SCC 530 and Shaw Wallace and Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2004) 136 Taxman 346 Cal. in its support. 19. Learned Counsel on behalf of the Respondent, which is represented by an IRP since the Company is in liquidation, had argued that the Company is not in any position to deposit the alleged fine. Moreover, no offence has been committed by the Company and the Ld. ASJ had rightly appreciated the facts to acquit the Company. Submissions heard and record perused. 20. The Complaint ag....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the said provisions if he proves that there was reasonable cause for such failure. 23. The entire case now hinges on whether the Respondent was able to give any reasonable cause for the delay, which is not denied. In the Statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the Accused Company through its Director Sumit Singhal, took the defence of the bad financial condition of the Company on account of which the TDS could not be deposited in time and was ultimately deposited after the availability of funds and interest. 24. The Ld. ACM had rightly observed that aside from a bald assertion about the financial condition, no cogent evidence had been led by the Respondent in proof thereof. Pertinently, no witness was examined by the Respondent Company no....