M/S. SURYODAYA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS)

CRL.RP/166/2021

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Suryodaya Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., represented by its managing director, who faced conviction under Sections 276B and 278B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for alleged defaults. The conviction was initially upheld by the LXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. The petitioner challenged this decision in the High Court of Karnataka, arguing that the conviction occurred during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic when physical appearances in court were restricted, and technical issues hindered virtual hearings. The High Court, acknowledging the exceptional circumstances and the right to a fair trial, remitted the case back to the lower court for a fresh decision, ensuring the appellant could fully present their case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 754314 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 03-12-2021
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: T N C SRIDHAR
• Assessee Lawyers: KIRAN JAVALI
• Keywords: Conviction; Conviction; Covid Pandemic; Criminal Revision Petition; Criminal Revision Petition; Income Tax; Virtual hearing
• Section: 278B; 276B

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.166 OF 2021 BETWEEN: M/S. SURYODAYA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD., A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, NO.387/1, 2ND MAIN ROAD, HMT LAYOUT, ANANDNAGAR, BENGALURU-560 024, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SHRI VENKATESHWARALU. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. KIRAN JAVALI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. CHANDRASHEKRA K, ADVOCATE) AND: THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, WARD-18(2), QUEENS' ROAD, BENGALURU-560001 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. T.N.C. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. NEERALGI JEEVAN BABU JAGADISH, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 07.07.2020 IN 2 CRL.A.NO.1213/2017 PASSED BY THE LXIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-65), BENGALURU CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 03.08.2017 IN C.C.NO.345/2014 ON THE FILE OF SPECIAL COURT FOR ECONOMIC OFFENCES ACT, BENGALURU AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 FOR THE OFFENCE ALLEGED UNDER SECTION 276(B) READ WITH 278(B) OF INCOME TAX ACT. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- ORDER Heard Sri. Kiran Javali, learned counsel for Sri. Chandrashekara K, appearing for revision petitioner and T.N.C. Sridhar, learned counsel for Sri. Neeralgi Jeevan Babu Jagadish appearing for respondent and perused the records. 2. This revision petition is filed by the revision petitioner/accused against the order passed by the learned judge in the LXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-65) at Bengaluru in Crl.A.No.1213/2017. 3. The brief facts of the case are as under:- 3 For the alleged default committed by the revision petitioner, the accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 276B read with Section 278B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred an appeal before the District Court in Crl.A.No.1213/2017. However, on 07.07.2020, the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court disposed of the appeal. The main ground annexed/urged in the present revision petition is that during the said period Covid pandemic was in peak and advocates were not entitled to appear physically before this Court and address their arguments and in the absence of counsel for the appellant, the learned judge in the first appellate Court passed the order, whereby it has resulted in miscarriage of justice. 4. Fact remains that as on the date of judgment, the Covid pandemic was on peak and there was a restriction for movements of the general public including the advocates to appear before the Court and argue the matter. Even though there was a scope for arguing the 4 matter virtually, having regard to the technical issues that was prevalent at the relevant point of time, all persons could not take advantage of virtual hearing and address their arguments. It is needless to emphasis that appeal is right of the accused and the same is to be dealt with in accordance with law. In the case on hand, having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances narrated in the grounds of appeal, this Court is of the considered opinion that allowing one more opportunity for the appellant to address the argument and if the appeal filed by the appellant is to be disposed of in accordance with law after affording sufficient opportunity to both the parties, the ends of justice would be met. Accordingly, I pass the following:- ORDER The petition is allowed. Without expressing any opinion on merits, the matter is remitted to the learned LXIV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in Crl.No.1263/2017 to be decided in accordance with law. 5 Parties are directed to appear before first appellate Court without further notice on 22.12.2021. Having regard to the fact that the conviction of the order is of the year 2017 and the alleged offences have been committed in the year 2013-2014, the trial Judge is expected to dispose of the matter as early as possible not later than end of February, 2022. Sd/- JUDGE AG "