High CourtsSingle Bench(2001) 05 DEL CK 0145

R.L. Sahni and Others vs R. Singh, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Another

Delhi High Court · Decided on 21 May 2001 · Citation: (2001) 171 CTR 459 : (2002) 254 ITR 292 : (2001) 119 TAXMAN 232

HON’BLE JUDGES
R.S. Sodhi, J
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous (Main) No. 800 of 1991

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 348 words

R.S. Sodhi, J.—Criminal Miscellaneous (Main) No. 800 of 1991 is filed with a prayer that the proceedings in the complaint case entitled "Ranjan Singh (Asst. CIT) v. Sahni Silk Mills (P.) Ltd. u/s 276CC read with Section 278B pending in the court of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Tis Hazari Courts be quashed.

2.

It is contended before me by learned counsel that for the assessment year 1986-87, a return was required to be filed latest by June 30, 1986. However, the return was filed on May 25, 1988, and, Therefore, the Department proceeded by filing a complaint initiating prosecution u/s 276CC read with Section 278B. Learned counsel draws my attention to the proviso to Section 276CC where it is mentioned that for any assessment year commencing on or after April 1, 1975, if the tax payable by him on the total income determined on regular assessment, as reduced by the advance tax, if any, paid, and any tax deducted at source, does not exceed three thousand rupees, prosecution would not be launched. Learned counsel submits that during the pendency of this appeal, the appellate authority has assessed the income as minus Rs. 9,030 and further directed a refund of Rs. 40,642 for the year 1986-87 to the firm, Sahni Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd., 42-A, Friends Colony, New Delhi. In view thereof, he further submits that no proceedings could have been initiated since there is no tax payable much less not exceeding Rs. 3,000. At this time, Mr. Jolly, appears on behalf of the Department. He submits that a week''s time be given to him to ascertain whether the appellate order is under challenge before the Tribunal.

3.

Having heard learned counsel, I am not inclined to adjourn this matter further. This petition has been pending in this court since April 5, 1991. There is nothing on record to show that the appellate order is under challenge. I am, Therefore, satisfied that no complaint, in the given circumstances, could have been filed.

4.

Criminal Miscellaneous (Main) No. 800 of 1991 is allowed and the complaint is dismissed.