a IN THE COURT OF LD. ACMM (SPECIAL ACTS), TIS HAZARI ‘COURTS, DELHI ccno, 1887 or 2018 ‘MEMO OF PARTIES IN THE MATTER OF: INCOME TAX OFFICE, COMPLAINANT VERSUS 1.M/S. LORD KRISHNA REAL INFRA Pvt. Ltd. 207, JOP PLAZA SECTOR-18, GIP MALL, ota, UP-201301. 2. SH. ARVIND SINGH gat {DIRECTOR}, ge low RECON gygna near mirna rt ite“) se ton even ea hati oton, oro1s0" soACCUSEDIN THE COURT OF LD. ACM (SPECIAL ACTS), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI ce No. oF 2018, IN THE MATTER OF: INCOME TAX OFFICE, INCOME TAX OFFICER, ‘TDS WARD- 75(2}, NEW DELHT. VERSUS ‘8. LORD KRISHNA REAL INFRA Pvt. Ltd. 17, JOP PLAZA SECTOR-18, GIP MALL, NomDA, UP-201301, 2, SH. ARVIND SINGH nai NOIDA, UP-201301, > COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 200 CRP.C. FOR COMMISSION OF THE OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 2768 READ WITH SECTIONS 2785 AND 278E OF THE INCOME ‘TAX ACT, 1961 FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2014-15. MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH: 1. That the complainant is the Income Tax Officer of the sme Tax Department and the accused persons are Ward no. 75(2) of the Income Tax Office, and is filing the ficial duties. TheCIT (TDS) -1 has passed the sanction order under section 279(1) of the Income Tax Act sanctioning the prosecution of the accused persons for the commission of the offences ‘under section 276B Income Tax Act, 1961, as amended up to date, read with sections 2788 and section 278E of| the Act. The copy of the sanction order dated 08.03.2018 Js annexed herewith as Annexure C/1. . That accused no, 2 was the managing director of the ‘accused no, I during the financial year 2014-15 and were looking after the day to day functioning of the accused no. 1 company. ‘That accused no.1 is the holder of TAN No. DELAO#442E. During the financial year 201 the complainant deducted TDS, The total amount of TDS di: accused persons was Rs, 9,68,428/- but the said amount of TDS was not deposited into the Government treasury per the Income Tax within the stipulated time ne Income Tax. ‘Act. The copy of the traces repor department is annexed herewith as Annexure C/2. ‘That the said traces report was generated from ITD system and was forwarded by CPC, Vaishali, 2 unit of Income Tax Department, to the Assessing office's portal ‘The said traces report was downloaded by the is filed complainant on his computer and the pri before this Hon'ble court as annexure C/2. Thecertificate under section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act certifying the downloaded traces report on the computer of the complainant ia annexed herewith as Annexure cys, ‘That as per Rule 30 of the Income Tax Rules, the eductor should deposit the TDS within 7 days of the end of the month in which the TDS was deducted. Rule 30 is reproduced herein: 30, (1) At sums, deduced jin accordance wlth, he of te the Central (a) on the same day where the tax is paid without Production of an income-taxchellan; and (0) on oF before seven days from the ond of the month in ition is made or income-tax # due under ‘on or before 30th day of April where ‘amount is credited or paid in the month of Jn any other case, on ar before seven days from the end of the month which.” 6, That the Income Tax Officer, Ward no. 75\2}, New Delhi hhad issued notice under section 2(95) of IT Act dated 18.01.2017 to the Principal officer/Director ie, accused no, 2, accused no, 1 company to show cause as to why he should not be treated as principal officer for accused no. 1 for committing default in depositing the TDS sithin thestipulated time for FY 2014-15 which was replied by the accused no, 2 vide reply dated 24.01.2017 wherein of TDS. accused no. 2 admitted the factum of late ‘The accused no. 2 signed the reply as MD of the accused ro, 1 company. The copy of the notice dated 19.61 0 u/s 2(85) of LT. Act and reply dated 24.01.2018 are annexed herewith as Annexure €/4 (colly) ‘That the ITO was thus, based on the reply of the accused no, 2 passed the order under section 2(35) of the Act ated 02,02,2017 holding the accused no. 2 a8 the principal officer of the accused no. 1 company for the relevant financial year. The copy of the order dated (02102.2017 under section 2/35) of the Act is annexed herewith as Annexure C/8. ‘That the complainant had thereafter vide proposal/ leter dated 14.02.2017 referred the case of the accused persons to the CIT (TDS) for according sanction for launching the prosecution against the accused persons, ‘The copy of the proposal/ letter dated 14.02.2017 is annexed herewith ax Annexure C/6. ‘That the sanctioning authority was pleased to issue show ‘cause notice to the accused on MRAMEOBEO1? as to why sanction for launching prosecution should not be granted which remained uncomplied with. The copy of the notice ‘dated 22-27.02.2017 issued by the CIT (TDS) ~ 1 u/s 279) (a) of the Act are annexed herewith as Annexure C/7.‘That the accused had replied vide reply dated 09.03.2017 12 10 deposit wherein the accused sought some more the balance interest. The copy of the dated (09.02.2017 is annexed herewith as Annexure ‘That the sanctioning authority had issued a non the accused compliance notice of the earlier notices. vide notice dated 24.03.2017 pursuant to which the feccused had filed a compounding application on 29.03.2017 before the Ld. CCIT (TDS) for the le Act. The compounding of the offence u/s 2768 sid compounding application of the accused was dismissed by the Ld. CCIT (TDS) vide onder dated 06.02.2018 as the accused had not complied with the the SCN dated conditions of compounding, The copy HEI, compounding application date 29.09.2088 and order dismissing compounding application dated 06.02.2018 are annexed herewith as Anuexure ¢/9 ‘That the sanctioning authority had issued another final the Act dated 19.02.2018 show cause notice u/s 21 to the accused which was replied by the accused vide reply dated 12/03/2018 wherein the accused admitted the default in depositing the TOS within sti The accused sought more time to deps amount, The copy of the show cause19.02.2018 and reply dated 12.03.2018 are annexed herewith as Annexure C/13 (colly) ‘That the said default of not depositing the TDS deducted from various payments made by the accused no. 1 company within the stipulated time was not an oversight or ignorance or the false defence taken by the company ‘but a well hatched conspiracy of defrauding the Government by not depositing TDS into the government treasury and causing oss to the exchequer. ‘The asseasee was the custodian of the government fund ie. TDS and it was the obligation of the assessee, accused no. 1, to deposit the said amount deducted TDS amount in the government account within the st ime. ‘That the accused persons have willfully not deposited the ‘TDS amount deducted from the payments of the various persons and had used the said amount for business/ personal purposes by diverting the funds for their own use. The guile of the accused persons will be proved by leading oral and documentary evidence against the accused persons. ‘That the accused no. 2 is the principal olficer of the ater the day to day aairs of the comp: liable to be prosecuted and punished for default of non depositing of the TDS deduvarious persons’ payments into the goverment treasury within the stipulated time, 16, That the accused persons have clearly committed the offences under sections 276B read with sections 278B, ‘and 278E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the guilt of the accused by leading evidence during the tial PRAYER It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed before this Hon'ble 4) Take cognizance against the accused; bj Issue summons against the accused and put him to tral 1s 2768 for the commission of the offences under sect read with sections 276B and 2786 of the Income Tax Aet, 1961 for FY 201 15; 6) Convict the accused persons for the commission of the aforementioned offences; 4) Pass any other or such other orders) as this Hon'ble court may deem fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case and oblige Prayedsccordingy conte Date Place: New Delhi Through) Ch. No, oneIN THE COURT OF LD. ACMM (SPECIAL ACTS), TIS HAZART ‘COURTS, DELI ce no. oF 2018, IN THE MATTER OF: INCOME TAX OFFICE COMPLAINANT versus (M/S. LORD KRISHNA REAL INFRA Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. “cAecused Persons APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 200 CRP.C. SESKING EXEMPTION OF THE COMPLAINANT. MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH: 1. That the complainant has been authorized and the CIP TDS-1, New Delhi to file the preses instance against the accused persons. 2. That the complainan: complaint has been filed by the complainant in discharge of| his official duties, 3. That the complainant, in conn tunable to appear before this Hon'ble co date of hearing and shall appear as and court would ask to appear. The compl appear on every date through SPP, Income Tas Department,PRAYER Is, therefore, most respectfully prayed before this Hon’ble court ‘to exempt the personal appearance of the complainant and oblige. Prayed accordingly “AE nary aaa nest is Dhingra P, Income Tax ch, No. 2 Ph # 011-239821: Date: Place: New DelhiIN THE COURT OF LD. ACM (SPECIAL ACTS), TIS HA7ART ‘COURTS, DELHT ce No. oF 2018 IN THE MATTER OF: INCOME TAX OFFICE | -COMPLAL'ANT VERSUS M/S. LORD KRISHNA REAL INFRA Pvt. Ltd. & Ant. Siectsed Persons st oF WITNESSES 1, Complainant. 2. Ms. Suman Bala, ITOAbnexune- off he * coo) cornice oF rue ta) comanssions SF anous Pix (rD6) Deiat aun lS GIHFLOOR, AAVAKAR BHAWAN, LAXMI AGAR, |" 53702 few bec 10082 F. mo. CHF /Proe./Order u/s 279{1)/2017-18/20% Dated: 08.03.2018 ‘SANCTION UNDER SECTION 279(1) OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1967 Name and Address ofthe Deductor + Ms. Lord Krishna Real Infra Pvt. Ltd 207,30? Plass Sector18, GIP Mat, Woida (UP) ame ofthe Principal Officers: Sh. Arvind Singb(Director| Country Manager + 2012-13, 2015-14 & 2014.15 (10) matters of the above mentioned Company; M/s, Lord Krishaa Real2. On basis ofthe above mentioned reference and after looking into various etals of deduction and payment of TDS as well as quarterly TDS statements, ‘which prima face shows that defsult in payments of TDS hs happened, the On 20062015 Sh. $ K Bajaj appeared and sought some more time for Aepositing the interest amount in whole and go for compounding. The deductor oe(0n 09.05.2017 a letter was fled stating that interest amount for FY 2012-13 has already been deposited. An adjournment was sought. On request case was adjourned to 20,03,2017. NO one appeared on 20.08.2017, [An opportunity letter was issued on 24.03.2017 fixing the date of hearing on 28.03.2017. On 29.03.2017 the deductor informed that he has filed for compounding and submitted @ copy of the same, Further on rejection of compounding application an opportunity leter was issued on 19.02.2018 fing the date of hearing on 07.03.2018, Shei 8.K. Bajaj appeared on 06.03.2018 and. ‘made oral submission, 3. The aaseatee was even several opportunist express its aay and aforded cpportuniy of being herd in accordance with the pringple of natural justice, |Assesse opted to adjourn the hearings and seeking more and more tne to deposi the Imerest amount. Under these circumstances, it i consinied that the ‘company in depositing the tax deducted within the preseribed time limit. The‘evcircumstances which led to failure on the part of deductor compasy in depositing the TDS amount within prescribed period, Thus the deductor company could not furnish any satisactory reasons/evidences justifying the ~ default occurred in deposition of the TDS. the Contra Goverment later than due date from the date of decucton. Frosecution proceedings u/s 276B & 2785 were initiated in this case. Meanwhile, the applicant deductor has applied for compounding of the offence 14 6 2014-15 respectively. The applicant was issued letter of acceptance vide ‘hich it was asked to deposit compounding charge of Re. 43,09,965/- within 60 Days of receipt of letter F. No. CCITOSY DLY/ Compounding/2017-18/1517 fo this leter Sh. SK. Baja, Manager Legal of M/s Lord Krishna Real Ira Put Ud. appeared in this office and agreed to deposit the compounding fee til 91.01.2018 fating which the compounding application wil be relcted. However, the assessee has failed to deposit the compounding fee tl date, Considering the ‘on willingness attitude, tie correct o infer thatthe assessee is no terest in compounding ofthe offences.” 5.1 Since the assessee has filed the compounding application in the O/o CCCIT(TDS), Delhi, itis an admission of the default for which proceedings u/s 276) ar liable. It appears thet asseasce has used the plea for compounding 8 8 tactics to delay the prosecution proceedings, which shows that assessce criminal offence which has been commited by way“ generated from TRACES database for FY 2012-13, FY 2013- 15 in the case of M/s. Lord Kalshna Real Tafra Pvt. Ltd, hows that the assessce Company had deducted tax on various dates but the in the Govt. account within the prescribed time period “Tue e-statements for the relevant period were Sled as per the following details Fya012.13 (@) Salary 240% ‘Gaarter Dus date of fing of statement, a 18.07.2012 2 5.102012 oe TSOTa0IS 16.033013 15082019 18.07 BOS Date of led statement 1608201315050017a TOLaOIS We 1 oF 15053015 TooeaOs ‘znount was credited as the 7. tax Tabiliy ed avin on deducted by the company out Oovernment money and the deductor was merely a custodian ‘vas legally bound to deposit the amount of tax within the time specified in the of the Principal Officera/ Directors to comaly ‘which he had failed to do. The various Courts cannot be granted immunity fom prosecution riain defaults. AS per the 1. Act, 1961, any person fails to pay to the Credit ofthe Central Government the tax deducted at source by him i required deduced by a person is also provided in Chapter XVIB faite to deposit the TDS within due date that is punishable u/s.276B of the Lt. Act, 1961 This interpretation bas lao been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The Hon‘ble Supreme Court of Inia, in its decision in the case of Madhusallan Syntex Ltd. v/e. UOI 290 XTR 199 (SC), has also held chat provisions of section 276B of the LT, Act, 1961 also cover delayed payments of tax deducted at source and prosecution lies if TDS is not paid to the “Government within the stipulation period. The observation of Hon'ble Supreme (Court on this issue ie as under “once a statute requires to pay tax and stipulates the period within which such payment is to be made, the payment must be made within that period. If the payment ig not made within that period, there i default and an appropriate action can be takenunder the Act Interpretation canvassed by the leamed counsel O ‘would make the provision relating to prosecution nugatory. Ii true thatthe Act provides for imposition of penalty for non-payment of tax That, however, does not take away the power to prosecute accused persons ifan offence has been committed by them.” In view ofthe decison of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the above ited case, the cate of assessee is fit or prosecution u/6.276 B ofthe LT. Act, 196. Alco various Courts have held that the sssessee cannot be granted immanity from prosecution merely on the ground that ultimately TDS was deposited in rot absolve the assessee of the offence judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s Madhumllan Syntex Limited vs. U © 1 [2007] 160 Taxman 71/290 ITR 199 (SC), wherein itis ‘held that it would be sufficient compliance iin the SCN issued tothe concern, it is mentioned that the assessing Officer intends to treat che Directors as Principal Oicers of the company under the Act. be established in a case under section 276B of the Act. Reliance is also placed on the judgments of Hon'ble juradictional High Court in the ease of ITO vs. Delhi trom Works (P) Ltd. 2010 (175) DLT 495 and in the case of ITO vs. ‘Anil Batra & ANR dated 23.09.2014 (CRL:L-P 261,262,249, of 2012}, {8 Baier prosecutions were preferably launched in the cases where the above ‘mentioned deiault was more than a yeer. This practice, over the years, was b rule by the Deductors to enjoy TDS/ Government money as ar and td pay atthe end ofthe FY. To curb such practice,‘othe CBDT, vide its letter F. No inoued guidelines for launch 1/08 dated 07.02.2013 ‘hereby avoiding launching of prosecution against them. 3. Considering thatthe relevant provisions ofthe Act do not lay down “ny spectic tine lini for the said default in deposit ofthe TDS/ TCS for itunching of prosecution and witha stew fo enable the field formations to take epproprate action in auch cases, the Central Board of Direct Taxes the Board) has dectded to modify the paragraph 3.1() and (i) of the said (putdelines, The modified guidlines areas under: Section 278AA of the Act provides that forthe purposes of section 1776B, no person shall be punishable for any faire refered ton the ‘id provision ihe proves tha there was a reasonable cause for such faire. The fact that the deductor has remited the money wih7,311 and Re ‘thatthe tax has been deducted in time but the same has bees 64 428 for FY. 2012-13, for period varying from 2 to 27 dance with the provisions of read with Rule 90 of the 1.7. Rules, 1962, The details of ‘due dates into the Government account. The detalls of TDS default of is ‘summed up in tabular form as under: ‘Amount of TDS Ta | Date of TDS, ‘the FY 2012-13 Due date af] ‘Actual date [Period — of Re 158,36,205) ‘Aimount of TDS ia | Date of TDS) ‘the FY 2019-16 Due date of] i TOTSae Say served on Deductor &© Wafer: and Te srcictin of persons oa body of inivituats whether incorporated offence, every person who was in-charge of the affaics of the company or responsible for this at the time of committing of offence is also deemed guilty of the offence unless he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge so that he had exercised all ‘due diligence to prevent the commitment of such offence: ‘Singh director of the company was separately isued notices eductor has been established beyond reasonable doubt in not depositing the ‘TDS ino the Government account within the prescribed time. Since the deductor has failed to deposit the tax into the Government account within the liable for prosecution as per section 2768 read with 278B,memes cf ast be ~ Go-t/s Arn (Spl AOD Iblealse2o AO atAnnexwte- 6/3 CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION UNDER SECTION 65B OF “THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 RE; PRINT OUT OF TRACES REPORT come Tax Officer, Ward 75(2) certify 1, Naresh Kumar Dwesar, that accompanying print out(s) contain reproduction of the Traces, report which were accessed by me and which record were stored by me in the hard disk of my Computer: With effect from 02.08.2018, the said computer was and cont 1d to be used regularly to access, storage, and process, Jfinformation by me, being the person having lawful control over the use of said computer and that throughout the material part of the aforesaid period, the computer was and has been operating propery. ‘The information contained in the sai print out/eleetronic record is derived from information fed into the computer in the ordinary course of activity. I certify thatthe said accompanying print out of the Traces Report is, to the best of my knowledge and bel and correct electronic record supplied from the said computer and have been derived by using Microsoft Excel and which are accurate pee A en ron, Oe Room no. 602, 6 Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, ‘Laxmi Nagar, Delhi PLACE: NEW DELHI DATE: 26Mr Arina singh tis Lora Keistng oT oP Plaza, Soe Gppaeite, IP Nol juin (se Oe) TH 2)e31 2000 ‘Sub Show-cause notice wls (35) ofthe Income Tax Act, 1964 “TaN DELLOGAZE—Reg 120K 27 0.6.8. SPEED POST~ coinany eteiaton or boy sen wram new of te ave, ou a rectinn pocsednge us 2708 “Sonn ot estng het ae rade ogre morasoun misoun ba~ Gor [6 8 [2 Posi pA) TH tpheals020 TAN 207AMELIE YS 5, F No. $TO/ Word75(@)/Pros, 2014-18/2016-17/ >| [SNGOME TAX DEPARTMENT Name of the deductor Compory ' M/s Lord Krishna Real Infre Pt. Ltd Porcipl ‘Sh, Arvind sngh(Dinector) Ws Lord Krishno Reol Infra Pt, Ltd 207, JOP Plaza Sec-18 Opposite, Sip Node (U.P) TAN DeLLoseaze Cx coor t] > Caee) a onl Acsen Cepia) ate of ender c2/oeveai7 ee ee 2(35) of the Trcome Tox Act (On perusal of data an system, it wis found thot during the FYsequences which he may incur, be deemed te be on essessee in def spect af such tox 3. Consequently, 08 per the provisions of Section 2768(0) ‘et, 1961, fa person fo deducted at source by hi os require by or under the provisions of C 4 Further, the provisions of sub-section 35 of Section 2 of the Act which reads ae under 2135) ‘princi! officer” used wih reference to 2 local authority or 2 Campany or ny other pb body or any association of persons or anybody of indindval, means (@) the secretaiy, treasurer, manager or agent of the authority. company lasociation o boo O° (0) any person conected wit principal officer,32 f Income Tax Act, 1961 ony person ion of the company. won whom the Intention of treating him es the Principal officer con be held os principl officer. Arvind Singh isthe Drester of ‘he conpany. All major decisions or taken in the compeny des this copocity he is certenly associated wth management and adminstretin of the company The company hasbeen ined in TDS defeut by not aeqoniing Toe within the prescribed tine period. Considering the seriousness and aged of default. it commot be accepted thot he was rot eware of this default or ihe 020Annemise- p- pe ~ Gonsfolest) esta Cop Ay Tales }2022‘VIP CHANDRA CIrTOS DELI aea Dae: zo0270017 co Income Tex Act, 1961 agains: you fe ling yo th principal fee of cofx- (Co I ie 2 pout Gopi tats) H pelea 222,F No CIT (DS-1)DoI6 issued tothe company and to you separate 1 2014-15 These natons were go sored a pmnenizte- 6/9 ‘ate: 24.03 2017 x Coord bet) eset 4 fae poet oglhid) IMesls000 uae Nomsomplone show ena tre At tr 108 ‘fault in FY. 2012-3, 2003-14 Plane refer tothe eubocetod above soeton 2768 and 2788 of the Act 3S deta ofthe F.¥. 2012-18, 2 AR Sh SK Baa atenied. You wer how cause notess we 2791) 3 supposed to make the complance of ntoes on 2008/2017 and He the reply of show cause 287032017 nca50, no reply ie received tl then Howe ded on 2010872017 and upon contacting your AR no reponse ‘You are given fal oppounty ta raresent yout ease and He your reply, any. By be presumed bat you have notinga ord hme Real ints Prete mies 29° warh2007 Lae Cori fie CD Aoun Gg Addit * Sioshoose a seeerneon nase tree enemiesae lz Depast § DS VS faye YES Mo WesConempated 2218 ME-TAN ACT, 96complaint has ben fs No.opvarunty of bing hear eo sub your reply and exp your conten on 9.98:2048, {1 14:20PM, fog whic # wi be presumed et you have nothing to ey ins egars ar tecosaryacton fr aunting protoiton we 2788 fhe IT Ae, 1061 wil be taken goste Dated 12 Mar Cre Coyle Bean pee ayy ips HES )20% TAN: DELLDUGE, Dear SieMtadam Incomplinse to your notice refered hove, weave eposied th amount dened a law ‘Thank Rearet a= Berm fe bees ce an ee cra ERR ae | Fe eee | aia aeay THE courT oF Zo! ppeal No. 20/8 720) _IURISDICTION of 200 zro PltsppPestioner Complaint vexsus Ol Joke RIZE tate Ree po gelDsthrepiccsed KNOW ALL iowhom prs Slcone Qa) pool. Mesh kun DAcsen rr b7fo re ee parame BE ANISH DUINGRA, Advocate Exrtment No.{IN THE COURT OF SH. PAWAN SINGH RAJAWAT LD. ACMA (SPECIAL ACTS), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELI ce NO, 1841 OF 2019 IN THE MATTER OF: INCOME TAX OFFICE... COMPLAINANT VERSUS LORD KRISHNA REAL INFRA PVT. LTD. RESPONDENT APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT SEEKING PERMISSION TO FILE THE LEGIBLE COPY OF ‘TRACES DEFAULT SUMMARY OF THE ACCUSED PERSONS FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2014-15. ‘MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH: 1. That the complainant had filed the complaint under section 200 CR.P.C. for commission of the offences under section 276B read with sections 278B and 2785 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the financial year 2012-13 against the accused company and its Director treating hhim as the Principal officer ofthe company. 2, That on 11.02.2019, the matter was listed before this Hon’ble court for the arguments and summoning of the accused person. ‘That the complainant Sh. Naresh Kumar Dwesar, Income ‘Tax Officer Ward -75(2) was present in the court and Lé. Hon'ble Court pleased to heard the part arguments on‘the point of summoning, Further Ld, Court had directed to file the legible copy of Traces Default Summary of the accused persons vide order dated 11.02.2019. 44, That in compliance to the order dated 11.02.2019 and directions of the Ld. Court, the complainant herein wish to bring on record the legible copy of Traces Default Summary of the accused persons for the relevant ‘nancial year. PRAYER therefore, most respectfully prayed before this Hone court, kindly take the Legible copy of Traces Default Summary of the accused persons forthe relevant financial year on record and oblige. Prayed accordingly conn Date: saan ovess® Place: New Delhi ‘Through, a ch. No. 29, Ph # 011-23982115, +91-9818265660 al.comfee ae ror 400 3m 031880THE COURT OF L. ACAI SPECIAL Lowa ees acts al dnt eae _SArVEN SETH! ARTATRANA PANDA /GARGI SETHE, ‘fovecee advocate tbe mou Advocate ne seve cate aor! Pa eo pcan eed roa su pe ot To sor wry trun ees, snl ie, wen cn oes oh ages ns payer ts te ante back acura o mt rn a cura, of opaeePry of congo a sa cas er ak sain en Ss es a TERRES STE ace ete socom, rot agua hatn ne cr tn en tate Araby a iS Se ee aera anes a case ge t= aN Je Seip ee So :|THE COURY OF LD. ACMM (SPECIAL. ACTS), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHE CCNO. 1881 OF 2019 Complainant Aecssed hearing before this Honble Court aay used No2 in the abuve mentioned the Hon'ble Cour on account of helt Through counsel: Hemant Gupta RTHoRAED SURGEON re A tc | Thee My Arvind RB who 7? SYpy. me Bur ny ndiae ny frectracth € ae, Ke Acubz ee Re dev 2uctes wey 29/6/19 hoo dean aoroLcrezonssst2019.1.1 pom nat it INTHE COURTOF Sh Pavan Singh Rawat ‘Ada. Chet Metropolitan Magistrate SUMMONS TOAN ACCUSED PERSON (See Scion 61) [LORD KRISHNA REAL INFRA PVTLID 287, JOPPLAZA SECTOR-8, GIP MALL, NOIDA, UP-20130 peas ea lhe wea aadPDL Cranwoasse209. 1.2 Lcraa.0n35042019 ji A ‘oeticametin sa cna TH. a Ct nai cx connsunns ons 7048, INCOME TAX OFFICE Ys -ORD KRISHNA Seer (sect ras eer Dare 01679 manures 1 a 4 = Pee{THE COURT OF Lo, ACM (SPECIAL ACT), TS HAZARI COURTS, DEL EA ‘coo. s8e1 OF 218 nae as Oe Conant Ana Seo pecs OW ALL ohn a psn ea ome at Arn Sn Shae pee reese aproptem eaboeteace in ny aah ae m/e “Tota tana cunts Smt 8 ene daca fpeste pay ‘owihn fcronie si eo ira aan ny aureus at my anton posses Senacsrar hod cae he sore cose ons fr Pre Dat 3 yeom he Ca ee sha oS i sganbr meei ce nie, 1841/2015 co es Une Prete Band Mme (Oe JS ae FORM NO. 45 ond an Bal Bond fo iendance belo ies nage oteg Stent {(Bection 496, 437,498 (9) and 441) anemia Doel sitet RAH 82 fem 80.22) The peace ten vest etoning <6. 2015 adar sector 24 OPE ieee Bail Bond AY LINO | Suualit ATO! A. ton tome pian. cade. asap iM Re LD sartheabovenais, sit OCALA PBZ wneud Nuun a BEES ESS P =H Fam hye 9ehbeAFFIDAVIT 6 That deponent undertakes to produce the accused before the honourable Bs Gmail Fd nthe case to vs Lord Krishna Real na Pvt Lid & Ane Fy 201243 to 204446 warsasahregVion Rashoa a Dnaranie | Garten Ne. br