AMAL KUMAR CHATTERJEE, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner in these two rules which is a private limited company is sought to be prosecuted in two cases for an offence under Section 276b of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which is punishable wi,th imprisonment and fine. In these rules seeking to quash the proceedings, it has been contended that the prosecution of the company for such an offence is incompetent because no sentence of imprisonment can be imposed on it. This ground was canvassed before the learned Magistrate in both the cases but as it did not find favour with him, the petitioner has come up in revision.

( 2 ) THE learned advocate for the petitioner has argued that a company being a juristic or an artificial person cannot be committed to prison and,therefore, no prosecution can be started against it because even in the case of conviction, sentence in the way indicated in Section 276b of the Income-tax Act could not be passed by the court. He has referred to the decision of the Delhi High Court in D. C. Gael v. B. L. Verma [1974] 93 ITR 63. The learned judge had taken the view that the provision of Section 276b of the Act left no discretion with the court to impose any sentence but imp

Click Here to Read the rest of this document