INCOME-TAX OFFICER Vs. UNITED KARANPUR COLLIERY (P LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The three criminal revision applications have been filed on behalf of the Income-tax Officer, Ward 'C' Dhanbad for encroachment of the sentences imposed on opposite party No. 2 in these applications, who is the Director of the Company (Opposite Party No. 1), and for imposition of sentence on opposite party No. 1, against which no sentence has been imposed by the learned Magistrate, although the Company has been found to be guilty of offences under Section 276(b), read with Section 276(d), of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').

(2.) As common questions of law and fact are involved in these applications, they have been heard together and are being disposed of with the consent of the parties, by this common judgment.

(3.) I shall first take up Criminal Revision No. 315 of 1971. The petitioner Income-Tax Officer submitted a prosecution report before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Baghmara at Dhanbad, on the 16th June, 1970, alleging therein that opposite party No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Company') was carrying on business at Kharkhari in the district of Dhanbad and opposite party No. 2 was its Director and the Principal Officer responsible for the management and administration of the affairs of the Company. It was further alleged that the accused opposite party did not file the annual return for the financial year 1967-68 within the prescribed time and, as such, there was a contravention of the provisions of Section 206 of the Act, read with Rule 35(1) of the Income-Tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'). A further contravention of Section 200 of the Act, read with Rule 30(1)(b) of the Rules was alleged because the opposite party bad failed to pay within the prescribed time limit to the credit of the Central Government a sum of Rs. 8,397-35 paise, which the accused had deducted as income-tax and super-tax from the salaries paid to their employees during the aforesaid period of 1967-68. On the aforesaid allegations, according to the prosecution report, offences punishable under Section 276 (b) and (d) of the Act was made out and the accused were liable to be punished for the same.