THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. GENEWA INDUSTRIES LIMITED

CRL.A/926/2021HC KarnatakaKAHC01041150202006 January 2025Author: SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR3 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Karnataka held that the appeal filed by the Income Tax Department against the inadequacy of the sentence is not maintainable. The Court referred to its previous decision in the case of The Income Tax Department Vs. M/s. Jenious Clothing Private Limited and another, Crl.A.No.2104/2023, decided on 12.07.2024, which dealt with similar facts and circumstances. Following the precedent set in that judgment, the present appeal was also found to be not maintainable. The Court dismissed the appeal. However, liberty was granted to the appellant to present the appeal before the jurisdictional Sessions Court within two months from the date of the judgment, with a clarification that the period spent before the High Court would not affect the consideration of the limitation period for filing before the Sessions Court.

What were the facts?

The Income Tax Department (appellant) filed a criminal appeal against M/s. Genewa Industries Limited (respondent) challenging the inadequacy of the sentence awarded by the Special Court for Economic Offences, Bengaluru, on October 31, 2019, in C.C.No.99/2014. The appeal was filed under Section 377 of the Cr.P.C. seeking an enhancement of the sentence for an offence punishable under Section 276B of the Income Tax Act. The High Court of Karnataka considered the maintainability of the appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether an appeal filed by the Income Tax Department against the inadequacy of a sentence, for an offence punishable under Section 276B of the Income Tax Act, is maintainable before the High Court. Assessee's Contention: Not recorded. Revenue's Contention: The revenue argued for the enhancement of the sentence, implying the appeal against inadequacy is maintainable. The revenue relied on the filing of the appeal under Section 377 Cr.P.C.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

276B, 377

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 926 OF 2021 BETWEEN:

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, (TDS) CIRCLE -16 (2), HMT BHAVAN BANGALORE – 560 032. …APPELLANT

(BY SRI SUSHAL TIWARI N, ADVOCATE)

AND:

M/s. GENEWA INDUSTRIES LIMITED No.141/1, ITPB, NEW HOPE FARM CIRCLE WHITEFIELD, BANGALORE- 560 066.

( A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, REP BY ITS MG. DIRECTOR T MURULIKRISHNA REDDY)

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI G S NAGHARISH, ADVOCATE)

THIS CRL.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 377 Cr.P.C PRAYING TO ENHANCE THE SENTENCE AGAINST RESPONDENT No.1 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 276B OF I.T ACT IN C.C.No.99/2014 BY THE SPECIAL COURT FOR ECONOMIC OFFENCES AT BENGALURU DATED 31.10.2019 AND ETC.,

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

Digitally signed by HEMAVATHY GANGABYRAPPA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the Income Tax Department against the inadequacy of the sentence dated 31.10.2019 passed in C.C.No.99/2014 by Special Court for Economic Offences, Bengaluru. 2. Heard learned counsel for appellant on maintainability the of appeal. 3. Maintainability of the appeal had come up for consideration before this Court in the case of The Income Tax Department Vs. M/s. Jenious Clothing Private Limited and another, Crl.A.No.2104/2023 and connected matters decided on 12.07.2024, wherein this Court considering the relevant details, has held that the appeal filed by the Income Tax Department against the inadequacy of sentence is not maintainable. For the reasons stated in the judgment referred to supra, the present appeal is also not maintainable. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

Liberty is given to the appellant – Income Tax Department to present the appeal before the jurisdictional Sessions Court within a period of two months from the date of this judgment. It is made clear that the period which had been spent before this Court will not come in the way for considering the period of limitation, if the appeal is filed before the jurisdictional Sessions Court within the time noted supra. 4. In view of dismissal of the appeal, all pending applications are disposed of.

Sd/- (SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

GH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →