VARMA R A CIT ASST Vs. LAXMI INDUCTION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) QUITE an important question that arises for consideration in the present group of 11 criminal revision applications is regarding the interpretation of the expression 'shall also be liable to fine equal to the amount of such loan or deposit' appearing in s. 276DD of the IT Act, 1961.

(2.) THAT since the fact -situation and the law governing all these criminal revision applications and the point raised for consideration are quite identical and common, but for some minor details here and there regarding names and addresses of the respondents, amounts of loans or deposits, and different Courts where the complaints came to be filed, etc., at the joint request and consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, they are heard and finally decided together by this common judgment.

(3.) MR . B. B. Naik, the learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the impugned orders of sentences, apart being ex facie unduly lenient and manifestly unjust, were illegal also inasmuch as the concerned learned magistrates have clearly misinterpreted the impression 'shall also be liable to fine equal to the amount of such loan or deposit' appearing in s. 276DD of the Act while imposing the flea -bite of a fine in question, relying upon a judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court rendered in the case of ITO vs . Lakshmi Enterprises : [1990]185ITR595(AP) . In order to make good the point, Mr. Naik has first of all invited the attention of this Court to ss. 276DD and 276E of the Act, which read as under :