Ward v. Krishnagopal Motilal Chandakage: 53 Years, Occu.: Business,Adat Bazar, Tal. & Dist.ahmednagar

{1} ALP 159 OF 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY PVT. PARTY NO. 159 OF 2018 Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ahmednagar Circle, “Aaykar Bahvan”, Aurangabad Road, Ahmednagar. ….Applicant Versus Krishnagopal Motilal ChandakAge: 53 years, Occu.: Business,Adat Bazar, Tal. & Dist.Ahmednagar. …..Respondent(Original Accused) ….. Advocate for Applicant : Ms.Kalpalata Bharaswadkar Patil (through VC) Advocate for Respondent : Mr. Vijay B. Patil ….. CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J. RESERVED ON : 12 FEBRUARY, 2024 PRONOUNCED ON : 21 FEBRUARY, 2024 ORDER : 1.This application is at the instance of original complainant, Income Tax Officer seeking leave to file appeal against judgment and order passedby the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), acquitting presentrespondent in RCC No.15 of 2011 vide judgment and order dated22-01-2018. {2} ALP 159 OF 2018 2.Ms.Kalpalata Bharaswadkar Patil, learned Counsel for theapplicant, who appeared through Video Conference, apprised this Courtabout the proceedings instituted against respondent for offence underSection 276(C) of the Income Tax Act. According to her, respondent wasengaged in business of share trading. He has filed his annual return for theyear 2006-2007 showing his total income as Rs.6,27,99,405/-. That furtherhe declared short term capital gain to the tune of Rs.4,73,30,889/- andRs.1,53,11,488/- towards long term capital gain. That as per provisions ofthe Income Tax Act, he was liable to pay Rs.53,17,680/- including interestfor delayed payment. That inspite of several opportunities, he failed todeposit the amount due and therefore, tax authorities were required toattach bank account as well as demat account of respondent. 3.It is further submitted that after receiving grant of sanction forprosecution against accused for offence under Section 276(C) of the IncomeTax Act, proceedings were instituted before the learned JMFC. However,learned JMFC has acquitted the respondent by order dated 22-01-2018. 4.After apprising the above factual findings behind the proceedings,learned Advocate for the applicant fairly conceded that in view of judgmentand order of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of K.C.Builders and {3} ALP 159 OF 2018 Others v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (2004) 2 SCC 731,which is also referred by the learned JMFC, there is correct appreciation bythe learned JMFC and there is no merit in the instant appeal. 5.Learned Advocate for respondent was also present and he alsojustified and supported the judgment of the trial Court. 6.After considering the submissions of both the parties, though hereleave is sought to question the impugned judgment, learned Advocate forthe applicant has fairly conceded that there is no case on merit. Therefore,in view of said material, leave is refused. Accordingly, I proceed to passfollowing order : ORDER Application for Leave to Appeal By Private Party No.159 of2018 stands rejected. ( ABHAY S. WAGHWASE ) JUDGE