Tax Department v. M/S. Jenious Clothing Private

Digitally signed byLAKSHMINARAYANAMURTHY RAJASHRILocation: HIGHCOURT OFKARNATAKA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19 DAY OF JULY, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 881 OF 2022 BETWEEN: THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DS CIRLC -2(1), H.M.T BHAVAN BELLARY ROAD BANGALORE – 560 032. …APPELLANT (BY SRI SANMATHI E I, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/s. MIRAFRA SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD No. 72 AND 73, AKSHAYA TECH PARK 2 FLOOR, EPIP ZON PHASE 1, WHITEFILED BANGALORE – 560 066. (A COMAPNY REGISTD UNDERE COMAPNIS ACT, REPRESETNED BY ITS DIRECTOR - SHYAM PRADALA) 2. SHYAM PRADALA, DIRECTOR No.72 AND 73, AKSHAY TECHPRD 2 FLOOR, EPIP ZON PHASE-1, WHITEFILD BANGALORE – 560 066. …RESPONDENTS THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 378(4) CR.PC PRAYING TO ENHANCE THE SENTENCE PASSED AGAINST THE ACCUSED NO.1 IN C.C.NO.51/2019 U/S.27-B R/W SEC.278-B OF IT ACT, BY THE - 2 - SPECIAL COURT FOR ECONOMIC OFFENCES, BENGALURU DATED 16.09.2021 AND ETC., THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT 1.This appeal is filed by the Income Tax Department against the inadequacy of the sentence dated 16.09.2021 passed in C.C. No. 51/2019 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 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 period which has 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 off. Sd/- JUDGE LRS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 5