ORAL JUDGMENT :- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondents though they are served. Respondent No.4 however was deleted from the array of parties by the petitioner.

2. The petitioner is challenging the judgment and order passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 47th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai whereby accused No. 1 to 4 were discharged from the prosecution which was launched by Income Tax Department under section 276-B read with 278-B of Income Tax Act.

2A. Brief facts which are relevant for the purpose of deciding this application are as under :-

Forty complaints were filed against the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 and original accused No.4 under section 276-B read with 278-B of Income Tax Act for not making the payment of tax deducted at source within prescribed time to the credit of Central Government. In these cases, application for discharge was filed by all the accused and it was contended that the amount in question was duly paid by the accused after it was brought to their notice. It is further contended that so far as payment of interest is concerned matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

Click Here to Read the rest of this document