Revision Petition - Mahagun

IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, TIS HAZARI,
DELHI
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. _________OF 2022
IN THE MATTER OF:
M/s Mahagun India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ………

Petitioners
Versus
Income Tax Officer (ITO)

………Respondent
INDEX
S. No. PARTICULARS PAGES

1. Notice of Motion 01
2. Memo of Parties 02-03
3. Synopsis and List of dates & events 04-06
4. Criminal Revision Petition along with affidavit 07-24
5. Annexure – P/1 (Colly): 25-385
Copy of the complaint, summons and notice issued to
the Petitioners herein pursuant to CC no. 1934/2021
under section 276B of the Act.
6. Annexure – P/2: 386-387
Table depicting the delay in depositing TDS
7. Annexure – P/3: 388-397

Copy of reply dated 15.03.2021.
9. Annexure – P/4: 398

Copy of the Circular dated 28.05.1980
10. Application for condonation of delay along with 399-406
affidavit.
11. Copy of Board Resolution 407
12. Vakalatnama 408-411
PETITIONERS
THROUGH
KRISHNOMICS LEGAL
Gagan Kumar, Advocate for Petitioner
810, DLF Prime Tower, F-79 & 80, Okhla Industrial Area
Phase-I, New Delhi-110020
Email: gagan@krishnomics.in; M: 9810182194
Place: New Delhi

Date: .12.2022
DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF:

Petitioners
Versus

………Respondent
NOTICE OF MOTION
Take Notice that the accompanying petition will be listed before Court on ___
________at 10.30 O’Clock in the forenoon, or so soon thereafter as may be
convenient to the Court.
PETITIONER
S
THROUGH
KRISHNOMICS LEGAL
Gagan Kumar, Advocate for Petitioner
Place: New Delhi

Date: .12.2022
DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF:

Petitioners
Versus

………Respondent
MEMO OF PARTIES
M/s Mahagun India Private Limited

A Company registered under the provisions of
Companies Act, 1956.
R/o: C-227, Vivek Vihar, Phase-1,
Delhi - 110095 …..Accused No. 1/ Petitioner
Sh. Dhiraj Jain

S/o: Shri Pawan Kumar Jain
R/o: C-227, Vivek Kumar,
Delhi – 110095 ……..Accused No. 4/ Petitioner
Versus
Circle – 75(1), New Delhi,
6th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan,
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi – 110092 …………Respondent
PETITIONER
S
THROUGH
KRISHNOMICS LEGAL
Gagan Kumar, Advocate for Petitioners
Place: New Delhi

Date: .12.2022
SYNOPSIS, LIST OF DATES & EVENTS
That the instant revision petition is being filed under section 397 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure,1973 (“CrPC”) to set aside and quash summons, and
subsequent notices issued to the petitioners/accused no. 1 and accused no. 4 in
complaint case no. 1934/2021 titled as “ITO v. Mahagun India Pvt. Ltd.
pending before the court of Shri Anurag Thakur, Ld. ACMM (SPL. ACT), Tis
Hazari Courts, Delhi for alleged violation of section 276B of the Income Tax
Act, 1961 (“the Act”). The company engaged in the business of Real Estate
Development since 1995. The company has been diligent in depositing TDS and
all other compliances with the provisions of Chapter XVII of the Act. It has
also never been subjected to any penalty or prosecution u/s 201/276B r.w.s. 279
of the Act. During the financial year 2016-17, the company has incurred various
expenses and deducted tax at source in accordance with the law and deposited
the same with the credit of Central Government. However, in the last two
quarters, in sporadic cases, the tax was deposited along with interest after the
due date as provided in terms of Rule 30 of the Income Tax Rules 1962 (“the
Rules”). The Assistant Commissioner of Income tax circle 75(1) issued a show
cause notice under section 2(35) of the Act dated 22.01.2020 i.e., three years
after the last payment of the TDS was deposited along with interest under
section 201(1A) of the Act. Thereafter, the order section 2(35) of the Act dated
10.02.2020 was passed making Shri Tej Krishen Peer (CFO), Shri Amit Jain
(Director), and Shri Dhiraj Jain (Director) as the principal officers and on the
same day a proposal with the Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS-1) seeking
sanction for launching the prosecution against the petitioner as well as the
principal officers has been filed. Thereafter, the learned Commissioner of the
Income Tax (“Ld. CIT”) issued show cause notices dated 20.02.2020 and
14.10.2020 to the company and principal officer named in order dated
10.02.2020 under section 2(35) of the Act. In response to these show cause
notices the company along with principal officers filed various replies on
11.03.2020, 13.03.2020, 23.10.2020, 15.03.2021, 17.03.2021 & 30.03.2021 to
demonstrate that TDS could not be deposited in certain cases in two quarters
only due to financial difficulty and for the reasons beyond its control. Upon the
request of Ld. CIT, the Company also demonstrated that there is no siphoning
off money on the part of the company or its principal officer. However, the Ld.
CIT without adverting to the facts of the case or even referring to the replies
dated 15.03.2021 and 30.03.2021 sanctioned the prosecution vide his non-
speaking order dated 07.06.2021. Thereafter, Income Tax Officer, Circle 75(1)
filed the impugned complaint under section 276B read with section 279 of the
Act on 16.07.2021 before the Court of Ld ACMM.
List of Dates & Events
22.01.2020 The Assistant Commissioner of Income tax circle 75(1) issued

the show cause notice under section 2(35) of the Act
25.01.2020 The reply submitted against the show cause notice issued under
section 2 (35) on 22.01.2020.
10.02.2020 The order section 2(35) of the Act was passed making Shri Tej
Krishen Peer (CFO), Shri Amit Jain (Director), and Shri Dhiraj
Jain (Director) as the principal officers.
20.02.2020 The learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (“Ld. CIT”)
issued the show cause notice to the company and principal
officers.
11.03.2020 The Company and principal officers submitted their reply
against the show cause notice dated 20.02.2020.
against the show cause notice dated 20.02.2020.
14.10.2020 The Ld. CIT issued the show cause notice.
against the show cause notices dated 20.02.2020 & 14.10.2020.
15.03.2021 The company along with the principal officers submitted its
reply against the show cause notices dated 20.02.2020 &
14.10.2020.
against the show cause notices dated 20.02.2020 & 14.10.2020.
30.03.2021 The company along with the principal officers submitted its
reply against the show cause notices dated 20.02.2020 &
14.10.2020.
07.06.2021 The Ld. CIT vide his order sanctioned the prosecution.
16.07.2021 The Income tax officer, circle 75(1) filed the complaint under
section 276B read with section 279 of the Act.
DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF:

Petitioners
Versus

………Respondent
REVISION PETITION UNDER SECTION 397 OF CODE OF

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE,1973, FILED TO SET ASIDE AND FOR
QUASHING OF SUMMONS DATED 18.05.2022 IN COMPLAINT CASE
NO. 1934/2021 TITLED AS INCOME TAX OFFICER Vs. MAHAGUN
INDIA PVT. LTD. BEFORE THE COURT OF LD. ANURAG THAKUR,
ACMM (SPL. ACT)/CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI COURTS, NEW DELHI
FOR ALLEGED VIOLATION OF SECTION 276B READ WITH
SECTION 279 OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND TO QUASH
SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1. That the instant revision petition is being filed under section 397 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (“CrPC”) to set aside and quash
summons, and subsequent notices issued to the petitioners/accused no. 1
and accused no. 4 in complaint case no. 1934/2021 titled as “ITO v.
Mahagun India Pvt. Ltd. pending before the court of Shri Anurag Thakur,
Ld. ACMM (SPL. ACT), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi for alleged violation
of section 276B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). The copy of
the complaint, summons and notice issued to the Petitioners herein
pursuant to CC no. 1934/2021 under section 276B of the Act is attached
herewith and marked as Annexure – P/1 (Colly).
2. That the petitioner herein is a company engaged in the business of Real

Estate Development since 1995. The company has been diligent in
depositing TDS and all other compliances to the provisions of Chapter
XVII of Income Tax Act. It has also never been subjected to any penalty
the prosecution u/s 201/276B r.w.s. 279 of the Act. It is matter of records
that it has deposited TDS for last three financial years as per detail
under:-
QUARTER RETURN TDS (in INR) Due Date of DATE OF

TYPE filing Filing
DETAILS OF TDS RETURN FOR F.Y. 2013-14:
Q1 24Q 26,38,859 15-Jul-13 12-Jul-13
26Q 71,28,541 15-Jul-13 12-Jul-13
Q2 24Q 35,54,032 15-Oct-13 12-Oct-13
26Q 85,77,957 15-Oct-13 12-Oct-13
Q3 24Q 40,52,435 15-Jan-13 13-Jan-14
26Q 1,02,10,520 15-Jan-14 13-Jan-14
Q4 24Q 43,43,041 15-May-14 10-May-14
26Q 2,31,49,628 15-May-14 10-May-14
Total 6,36,55,013
DETAILS OF TDS RETURN DEPOSITED FOR F.Y
2014-15:
Q1 24Q 31,71,017 15-Jul-14 14-Jul-14
26Q 52,22,902 15-Jul-14 12-Jul-14
27Q 11,138 15-Jul-14 12-Jul-14
Q2 24Q 36,90,678 15-Oct-14 13-Oct-14
26Q 73,50,942 15-Oct-14 13-Oct-14
Q3 24Q 43,80,931 15-Jan-15 12-Jan-15
26Q 81,00,610 15-Jan-15 12-Jan-15
27Q 1,01,964 15-Jan-15 12-Jan-15
Q4 24Q 1,67,92,568 15-May-15 01-May-15
26Q 3,34,70,286 15-May-15 08-May-15
27Q 31,30,335 15-May-15 02-May-15
Total 8,54,23,371
DETAILS OF RETURN DEPOSITED FOR F.Y
2015-16:
Q1 26Q 72,40,561 15-Jul-15 13-Jul-15
24Q 37,73,371 15-Jul-15 13-Jul-15
Q2 26Q 88,02,508 15-Oct-15 13-Oct-15
24Q 44,12,856 15-Oct-15 13-Oct-15
Q3 26Q 1,12,85,001 15-Jan-16 13-Jan-16
24Q 76,68,720 15-Jan-16 13-Jan-16
Q4 26Q 2,91,13,815 15-May-16 11-May-16
24Q 2,20,40,554 15-May-16 11-May-16
27Q 3,55,20,471 15-May-16 11-May-16
Total 12,98,57,857
3. During the financial year 2016-17, the company has incurred various
expenses and deducted TDS at source in accordance with the law and
deposited the same with the credit of Central Government. During the
year under review, there have been minor infractions. A table depicting
the delay in depositing TDS has been attached as an Annexure-P/2.
On perusal of Annexure-2, it can be seen that the Petitioner has not only
deposited TDS for first two quarters on time but has also filed TDS return
on time.
However, in the last two quarters, in sporadic cases, the tax was deposited
after the due date as provided in terms of Rule 30 of the Income Tax
Rules 1962 (“the Rules”). It is kernel to note that the petitioner suo moto
deposited interest under section 201(1A) along with delayed payments of
tax. The latest payment of TDS was made by 31.05.2017. Except for one
payment of Rs. 38,671/- which was made on 14.09.2017.
4. That the petitioner deposited TDS mostly within due time. Only in
handful of instances, TDS was deposited late. In any case, the delay in
the deposit of TDS ranges from 05 days to a maximum of 31 days.
Except for one payment of Rs. 38,671/- which was deposited with interest
with a delay of 137 days.
5. That the complainant issued a show cause notice under section 2(35) of
the Act dated 22.01.2020 i.e., three years after the last payment of the
TDS was deposited along with interest under section 201(1A) of the Act.
6. That an order section 2(35) of the Act dated 10.02.2020 was passed
making Shri Tej Krishen Peer (CFO), Shri Amit Jain (Director), and Shri
Dhiraj Jain (Director) as the principal officers.
7. That on the same day, the complainant filed a proposal with the
Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS-1) seeking sanction for launching the
prosecution against the petitioner as well as the principal officers.
8. That pursuant to the proposal the Ld. Commissioner of the Income Tax
(“CIT”) issued show cause notices dated 20.02.2020 and 14.10.2020 to
the petitioner and the principal officer named in order dated 10.02.2020
under section 2(35) of the Act.
9. That in response to the above said show cause notice, the petitioners filed
the following replies:
Date Reply filed by

11.03.2020 M/s Mahagun India Pvt. Ltd.
11.03.2020 Sh. Tej Krishen Peer
11.03.2020 Sh. Amit Jain
11.03.2020 Sh. Dhiraj Jain
15.03.2021  M/s Mahagun India Pvt.
Ltd.
 Sh. Tej Krishen Peer
 Sh. Amit Jain
 Sh. Dhiraj Jain
30.03.2021  M/s Mahagun India Pvt.
Ltd.
 Sh. Tej Krishen Peer
 Sh. Amit Jain
 Sh. Dhiraj Jain
10.That the petitioner vide its reply dated 15.03.2021 submitted elaborate
reasons for the delay in depositing TDS. Copy of reply is attached
herewith as Annexure – P/3. Further, through its being faced by the real
estate sector in general and by the Petitioner in particular. Upon request
of the CIT, it was also demonstrated that no siphoning off of funds took
place and proved the bonafide challenges faced by the petitioner. A copy
of the reply dated 17.03.2021 is annexed herewith on page 375 of
Annexure – P/1 (colly).
11.That the Ld. CIT vide his order dated 07.06.2021 sanctioned the
prosecution in an order running into 10 pages. The order is suffused with
judicial precedents and does not deal with the facts of the case at all. The
Ld. CIT in his above order at para no. 8, after reproducing several
judgments, but without adverting to the facts of the case or even referring
to the replies dated 15.03.2021 and 30.03.2021 filed by the petitioner,
sanctioned the prosecution. The replies so filed by the petitioner
demonstrated that TDS could not be deposited in certain cases in two
quarters only due to financial difficulty and there is no siphoning off
money on the part of the company or its Principal Officer as against
conclusion of “the deliberate intention of using government money for its
own purposes” in the sanction. The above said findings are bereft of any
facts and have been arrived at without even considering the replies filed
by the petitioner and the principal officer in this regard. Such “ipse-dixit”
finding demonstrates the complete non-application of mind while
granting the sanctions to the complainant to prosecute the petitioner and
principal officers. It is respectfully submitted that it is a deeply
entrenched and recognised legal principle that sanction is not a ritualistic
formality nor an acrimonious exercise. Sanction serves the salutary object
of providing a safeguard to the accused from unwarranted prosecution
and agony and trauma of a trial, and in the context of severe
consequences which it follows, is an integral process of law. The laconic
sanction order of the Ld. CIT gives a blurred view of the material
considered by him while granting sanction. The purported sanction
contains conclusion sans reasoning. The Sanction order suffers from the
vice of being a non-speaking order. It is nothing less and nothing more
than a communication conveying the conclusion in the form of a sanction.
12.That the present Complaint for the financial year 2016-17 under section
276B of the Act was filed in this Hon'ble Court on 16.07.2021.
13.That it is important to refer to Section 276B of the Act:

“If a person fails to pay to the credit of the Central Government (a) he
tax deducted at source by him as required by or under the provisions of
Chapter XVII-B; or
(b) The tax payable by him, as required by or under, - (i) Sub-Section (2)
of Section 115-O’ or
(ii) Second proviso to Section 194B, he shall be punishable with rigorous
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three months but
which may extend to seven years and with fine”.
14.That it is further submitted that Section 278AA of the Act provides that a
person shall not be punishable for any failure referred to Section 276B of
the Act if he proves that there was reasonable cause for such failure. It is
important to refer to Section 278A of the Act;
"Punishment not to be imposed in certain cases".
278AA. Notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of Section
276A, Section 276AB, or Section 276B, no person shall be punishable for
any failure referred to in the said provisions if he proves that there was
reasonable cause for such failure".
15.That from the careful reading of the above-mentioned Section 278AA, it

becomes evident that Section 276B of the Act is operative only if such
failure is without any reasonable cause.
16.That it is axiomatic that the violation of Rule 30 is not a sequitur to

violation of Chapter-XVII-B of the Act. Chapter XVII-B inter-alia
includes Section 201(1A) of the Act, which provides for levy of interest
in case the TDS is not deposited within the period mentioned in Rule 30
of the Act. Thus, Section 201(1A) adequately deals with the
consequences of not complying with Rule 30 by charging interest which
is compensatory in nature. In other words, Section 276B comes into play
only if the amount of TDS is retained with the deductor and not deposited
at all. It does not come into operation where TDS is deposited with
interest in case of delay. It is for this reason the prosecution under section
276B is for non-compliance of Chapter XVII-B and not for non-
compliance of Rule 30 of the Rules.
17.That it is submitted that the Central Board of Direct Taxes (“CBDT”)

vide its Circular dated 28th May, 1980, directed that the prosecution under
Section 276B should not normally be proposed when the amount
involved and/ or the period of default is not substantial and the amount in
default has also been deposited in the meantime to the credit of the
Government. No such consideration will, of course, apply to levy of
interest under section 201(1A). Copy of the Circular dated 28.05.1980 is
attached herewith as Annexure-P/4.
18.That the CBDT in its subsequent circular dated 18 th October, 2016

reiterated that if a deductor has remitted the tax and interest before receipt
of notice for prosecution from the Assessing Officer, then the same may
be considered as a reasonable cause mentioned under Section 278AA of
the Act. The relevant portion of this circular is reproduced hereunder:
“Section 278AA of the Act provides that for the purpose of section 276B,
no person shall be punishable for any failure referred to in the said
provision if he proves that there was a reasonable cause for such failure.
The fact that the deductor has remitted the tax before filing of TDS
Statement and interest before receipt of notice from the AO (TDS) for
prosecution, may be taken note of amongst other submissions of the
defaulter while considering his case for prosecution. While processing
the cases for prosecution under section 276B/276BB, a fair and judicious
view should be taken in view of the provisions of Section 278AA before
taking a decision for filing of complaints”.
Needless to emphasise that CBDT Circulars are binding on the tax
authorities including CIT.
19.That the Respondent deposited entire TDS for the Financial Year 2016-17
along with interest till 31.05.2017 and the first notice for prosecution was
issued on 22.01.2020. Therefore, the same should have been considered
as a reasonable cause under Section 278AA of the Act by the Ld. CIT as
well as the complainant following the above stated binding circulars.
20. That it is submitted that circulars issued by CBDT are binding on the
taxing authorities. Reliance is placed on UCO Bank Vs. CIT [1999] 237
ITR 889 (SC).
21.That in light of the above-mentioned circular dated 18 th October, 2016,

since the petitioner/ accused persons had deposited the tax along with
interest before receiving any notice for prosecution, the same ought to
have been considered as a reasonable cause mentioned under Section
278AA of the Act. In any case, the Petitioners explained in its
submissions that delay was caused owning to the precarious financial
situation of the Petitioner. At the cost of repetition, the most crucial
replies dated 15.03.2021 and 30.03.2021 were conveniently ignored by
the Ld. CIT before granting sanction.
22.That it is further submitted that from the careful reading of the above-
mentioned Section 276B, it is axiomatic that Section 276B of the Act is
operative only upon the failure to pay TDS to the credit of the Central
Government under the provisions of Chapter XVII B of the Act. It is
submitted that Chapter XVII B of the Act deals with tax deduction at
source and constitutes a complete code in itself in so far as TDS issues
are concerned.
23.That at this juncture, it is necessary to advert that Chapter XVII B

encompasses Sections 192 to 206B of the Act. The liability to deposit
TDS emanates from Section 200 of the Act. Further, Section 201(1A)
deals with a situation where the tax, which was required to be deposited
within the stipulated time, is not deposited. In other words, Section
201(1A) provides for payment of interest at the prescribed rate from the
due date of payment till the actual date of payment.
24.That it may, thus, be noted that the tax along with interest under Section
201(1A) has been voluntarily paid by the Petitioner/ accused persons
along with the interest, and needless to mention that this is adequate
compliance of Chapter XVII B of Act.
25.That it is submitted that Section 276B, is a prosecution provision and thus

deals with a situation where the deductor has deducted the tax but has not
paid it at all. In the instant case, that event never arose where non-
compliance of Chapter XVII B occurred. The requirement of invoking
Section 276B is that when the taxpayers fail to pay the credit of the
Central Government under the Provisions of Chapter XVII B. In the
present case, the Petitioner/ accused persons, on the contrary, have paid
the TDS to the government voluntarily along with interest, and therefore
the prosecution under the present Section would not apply.
26.That the rationale is further substantiated by the fact that Clause (b) of
Section 276B of the Act refers to specific Sections viz. Section 115-O or
Section 194B unlike in clause (a).
27.That, in the instant case, no case is made out in the complaint that there is
non-compliance in terms of Chapter XVII B of the Act. Hence, the
present complaint is contumacious and without jurisdiction. Therefore,
the complaint is unwarranted, facetious and nugatory.
28.That, therefore, the rigour of Section 276B of the Income Tax Act does
not apply in the present case.
29.That from the above-mentioned conspectus of facts and averments of the

Applicant, and in light of the documents produced, it becomes palpable
that no offence whatsoever is made out against the Petitioner, since the
basis of the prosecution, i.e., valid sanction under Section 279 of the Act
was not obtained in the present case. In fact, it is submitted that there
exists no ground in the Complaint for even presuming that any offence
has been committed by the Applicant.
30.That furthermore, since it is not a case where there is non-payment of tax

or interest or both, there is no non-compliance of Chapter XVII B.
31.That the Ld. ACMM did not pass the speaking Order. That the order is
bereft of any reasons for taking cognizance of the offence. That the power
vested with the Court under the CrPC must be exercised judiciously and
based on well-recognized and settled principles.
32.That it is respectfully submitted that the Ld. ACMM completely ignored
the mandates of the law and settled principles, and mechanically took
cognizance of the Complaint and issued the summons as well as
subsequent notices.
Hence this petition is being filed for quashing the summons and the subsequent
notices issued under complaint case no. 1934/2021 on the following amongst
independent grounds and without prejudice to each other.
GROUNDS
A. BECAUSE the Ld. ACMM the issue of summons and subsequent notices
vide Order dated 18.05.2022 by the Ld. ACMM was without application
of judicial mind and in complete defiance of the Principles of Natural
Justice.
B. Because the Ld. ACCM erred in issuing summons to the petitioners for
alleged violation of section 276B of the Act, despite the facts the Ld. CIT
issued sanction order without considering the relevant replies of the
petitioner and explanation for not depositing TDS on time thereby
transgressing the legislative imperative of passing the speaking sanction
order.
C. Because the Ld. ACMM erred in taking cognizance of the complaint of

the respondent for alleged violation of Section 276B of the Act, ignoring
the settled law that in absence of a valid sanction, the court is not
empowered to take cognizance of the offence, and the proceedings would
be void and “not proceedings in the eyes of law”.
D. Because the Ld. ACMM erred in taking cognizance of the complaint of
the respondent for alleged violation of Section 276B of the Act, without
appreciating the facts the TDS was been deposited along with voluntary
payment of interest under section 201(1A) in terms of chapter XVII-B of
the Act.
PRAYER
In the view of above facts and circumstances, the Petitioners most

respectfully submitted prays that this Court may be pleased to:
a. Set aside the Order of summoning and issuance of notice to the

Petitioners herein being Accused no. 1 and 4.
b. Stay the trial of the Petitioners until the disposal of this Petition.
c. Pass any other order(s) in the facts and circumstances of the case
that this Hon’ble may deem it fit and Proper.
PETITIONER
THROUGH
KRISHNOMICS LEGAL
Gagan Kumar, Advocate for Petitioners
Place: New Delhi

Date: .12.2022

Revision Petition - Mahagun

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Revision Petition - Mahagun

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, TIS HAZARI,

CRIMINAL REVISION NO. _________OF 2022

IN THE MATTER OF:

M/s Mahagun India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ………

Income Tax Officer (ITO)

S. No. PARTICULARS PAGES

7. Annexure – P/3: 388-397

9. Annexure – P/4: 398

Gagan Kumar, Advocate for Petitioner

Phase-I, New Delhi-110020

Email: gagan@krishnomics.in; M: 9810182194

Place: New Delhi

CRIMINAL REVISION NO. _________OF 2022

IN THE MATTER OF:

M/s Mahagun India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ………

Income Tax Officer (ITO)

Gagan Kumar, Advocate for Petitioner

Phase-I, New Delhi-110020

Email: gagan@krishnomics.in; M: 9810182194

Place: New Delhi

CRIMINAL REVISION NO. _________OF 2022

IN THE MATTER OF:

M/s Mahagun India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ………

Income Tax Officer (ITO)

M/s Mahagun India Private Limited

Sh. Dhiraj Jain

Gagan Kumar, Advocate for Petitioners

Phase-I, New Delhi-110020

Email: gagan@krishnomics.in; M: 9810182194

Place: New Delhi

List of Dates & Events

22.01.2020 The Assistant Commissioner of Income tax circle 75(1) issued

CRIMINAL REVISION NO. _________OF 2022

IN THE MATTER OF:

M/s Mahagun India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ………

Income Tax Officer (ITO)

REVISION PETITION UNDER SECTION 397 OF CODE OF

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

2. That the petitioner herein is a company engaged in the business of Real

QUARTER RETURN TDS (in INR) Due Date of DATE OF

Date Reply filed by

13.That it is important to refer to Section 276B of the Act:

15.That from the careful reading of the above-mentioned Section 278AA, it

16.That it is axiomatic that the violation of Rule 30 is not a sequitur to

17.That it is submitted that the Central Board of Direct Taxes (“CBDT”)

18.That the CBDT in its subsequent circular dated 18 th October, 2016

21.That in light of the above-mentioned circular dated 18 th October, 2016,

23.That at this juncture, it is necessary to advert that Chapter XVII B

25.That it is submitted that Section 276B, is a prosecution provision and thus

29.That from the above-mentioned conspectus of facts and averments of the

30.That furthermore, since it is not a case where there is non-payment of tax

C. Because the Ld. ACMM erred in taking cognizance of the complaint of

In the view of above facts and circumstances, the Petitioners most

a. Set aside the Order of summoning and issuance of notice to the

Gagan Kumar, Advocate for Petitioners

Phase-I, New Delhi-110020

Email: gagan@krishnomics.in; M: 9810182194

Place: New Delhi

You might also like