Everything About Section 506 Indian Penal Code

Introduction to Section 506 IPC

Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with the punishment when the accused has committed the offense of criminal intimidation. Criminal intimidation has been defined under Section 503 IPC. The offense of criminal intimidation constitutes the threat of injury to a person’s person, reputation or property or to another person’s person, reputation or property in which that person is interested with the intention to cause alarm or cause him to do an act which he is not legally bound to do.

Section 506 – Punishment for Criminal Intimidation – Whoever commits, the offense of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both;

If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc – And if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offense punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.

At first reading of Section 506, it can be seen that the punishment prescribed in this section falls in two categories:

1. In simple cases of criminal intimidation, the punishment is imprisonment for a term up to two years or fine or both.
2. If the threat be to cause death of the threatened person, or grievous hurt, or destruction of property by fire, or to cause an offense to be committed which is punishable with death or life imprisonment or with imprisonment for a term up to seven years, or to impute unchastity to a woman; then the prescribed punishment is simple or rigorous imprisonment for a term up to seven years or fine or both.

Part II deals with more graver forms of criminal intimidation, and in that sense, requires a higher threshold to be brought into play. To warrant Part II of the section, it is necessary for the prosecution to prove that the threat to cause death or grievous hurt was accompanied by some act of the accused in pursuance of the threat.

Case Law

In the case of Rajinder Datt v State of Haryana[1], it was held that mere outburst of the accused at the time of the assault that he will kill the injured, will not attract Section 506. This is particularly so when the injuries caused are not grievous and are not caused to any vital part of the body of the injured.

In Keshav Baliram Naik v State of Maharashtra[2], the accused was alleged to have touched the hand of the prosecutrix, a blind girl, when she was asleep, removed the quilt and put his hand in her dress. He threatened to kill her if she disclosed his name. However, the prosecutrix shouted due to which her parents woke up. The High Court convicted the accused.

In the case of Ghanshyam v State of Madhya Pradesh, which also involved entering a house by the accused in the night armed with a knife, and threatening the inmates with death, the conviction under Section 506 Part II was held applicable and proper.

Where criminal intimidation was committed by threatening X and his daughter with injury to their reputation by having the indecent photographs of the daughter published, the appellant was held guilty of criminal intimidation. The intent was to cause alarm to X and his daughter[3].

In the case of Manik Taneja and Anr v State of Karnataka, the appellant and his wife met with an auto-rickshaw accident. They paid all the hospital expenses of the injured and met the Constable present at the time of the accident who they allege behaved with them in a rude manner. Thereafter, they posted comments on the Bangalore Traffic Police Page on Facebook, about the officer’s misbehavior. Their conviction was set aside as it was said that this act cannot constitute as one that would make up the offense of criminal intimidation.

Classification Of Offence

Part I of the offense of criminal intimidation is a non-cognizable, bailable and compoundable offense. Part II, on the other hand, is a non-cognizable, bailable and non-compoundable offense.

Conclusion 

To conclude, the punishment for criminal intimidation is duly given. The standard for ascertaining the offense of criminal intimidation is that of a reasonable person and hence, prevents any discrepancy or ambiguity in the law. The Supreme Court has applied the substance of this offense without vagueness. This can be seen through the various judgments discussed above. The standard of a reasonable person is that standard defining how a person should behave when placed in similar situation and circumstances. Punishment for criminal intimidation will only be attracted when the accused does not adhere to this standard of accepted behavior in society.

[1] (1993) Cr LJ 1025 (P&H)

[2] (1996) Cr LJ 1111 (Bom)

[3] Romesh Chandra v State, AIR 1960 SC 154

Simple Guidance For You In Section 323 Of The Indian Penal Code, 1860

INTRODUCTION TO IPC 323

The Indian Penal Code covers the offense of hurt under Chapter XVI, i.e., “Offences Affecting Life.” Section 323 punishes voluntary causing of hurt under the same.

The provision laid under Section 319 reads as: “Whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt.”

The important points for establishing an offense of under Section 319 are:

• Firstly, bodily pain caused should be physical. In other words, such pain should not be emotional or mental.
• Secondly, infirmity includes temporary mental impairment, hysteria, or terror.
• Thirdly, communicating diseases is also a cause of ‘hurt.’

The courts have taken a mixed approach to the third point. For example, in the case of R v. Clarence[1], there was a transfer of venereal disease from the husband to wife. The husband resisted from informing his wife in spite of knowing about his condition. Because if she had come to see, she would not have agreed for sexual intercourse. Contrarily, the court held that the husband was not guilty of causing ‘hurt.’

It is differentiated from the offense of ‘Grievous-Hurt[2]’. It is of a graver intensity as compared to ‘hurt’ and thus, lesser punishment is applicable in case of hurt.

VOLUNTARILY CAUSING HURT

A small case under Section 319 is not punishable. Thus, IPC demarcates a separate offense for hurting voluntarily or intentionally. Section 321 states: “Whoever does any act to thereby cause hurt to any person, or with the knowledge that he is likely thereby to cause hurt to any person, and does thereby cause hurt to any person, is said, “voluntarily to cause hurt.”

In Hanif Usmanbhai Kalva v. State of Gujarat[3], the court has discussed the essential ingredients which constitute the offense under section 323 IPC. These areas under:

1. “The accused caused hurt to another person;
2. He caused such hurt voluntarily;
3. S. 334 does not protect his act.”

Exception

Furthermore, these provisions under Section 321 is subject to Section 334 of the Indian Penal Code. Anyone who acts unintentionally or without any knowledge and causes hurt to a person who provoked him would have a reduced punishment as a result of lack of intention.

However, it is necessary here that the provocation must be grave and sudden.

Punishment

A person causing hurt voluntarily is punishable with an imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both under Section 323 IPC.

However, this punishment is subject to Section 334 which provides for imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both in case of doing the act under grave and sudden provocation.

Read Also: Voluntary Causing Hurt: Provision and Punishment

Other Forms Of Voluntarily Causing Hurt

1. Voluntarily Causing of Hurt by Dangerous Weapons or Means

Section 324 specifically defines ‘voluntarily causing of hurt by dangerous weapons or means’ as an offense. The special circumstances of voluntarily causing hurt laid down under Section 324 are by means of:

1. an instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or
2. an instrument which, used as a weapon of offense, is likely to cause death, or
3. fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or
4. explosive substance, or
5. the substance which is harmful to the human body to inhale, to swallow, to receive into the blood, or
6. any animal.

Likewise, imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both, is enforceable in case of voluntary hurt by dangerous means.[4] And it is also subject of Section 334.

2. Voluntary Hurt to Extort Property, Or To Constrain To An Illegal Act –

Voluntarily hurting a person to extort any property or valuable security from him or any person interested in him or constraining to do anything illegal is separately punishable with an imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and also relevant fine.[5]

3. Causing Hurt by Means of Poison to Commit an Offence – 

Section 328 of the IPC says that, whoever administers to or causes to be taken by any person any poison or any stupefying, intoxicating or unwholesome drug, or other thing with intent to cause hurt to such person, or with intent to commit or to facilitate the commission of an offence or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause hurt is an offender.

Furthermore, such an offense would be punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.[6]

4. Voluntary Hurt to Extort Confession – 

Voluntarily hurting a person so as to extort any confession or information from either the sufferer or anyone interested, which may lead to the detection of an offence or misconduct and vice versa, is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and also makes a person liable to fine.[7]

Illustration: Torturing a person in order to induce him to point out where certain stolen property is deposited makes a person guilty of an offense under Section 332.

5. Voluntary Hurt by Endangering Life in Public – 

Whoever hurts any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.[8]

CONCLUSION

Thus, intentional or voluntarily hurting anyone is a punishable offense. Section 323 of the IPC punishes it accordingly. In addition to this, several separate offenses are also formed in furtherance of a voluntary act.

[1] (1889) 22 QB 23.

[2] Section 322, Indian Penal Code 1860.

[3] Criminal Misc. Application No. 3120 of 2014.

[4] Supra note 2, Section 324.

[5] Ibid, S. 327.

[6] Ibid, S. 328.

[7] Ibid, S. 332.

[8] Ibid, S. 337.

Seven Stereotypes About Self Defence Laws In India That Aren't Always True

Introduction

It is the primary duty of the state to protect its citizens from any harm. But circumstances may arise where the state aid is not available, or the state is not able to lend hands for the protection of an individual against imminent danger or harm. In such a situation, an individual is vested upon with rights by the state to use force to fend-off the immediate threat to his or someone else’s property or person. This right is the right of private defense or self-defense.

Right of Private Defence

The primary rule in criminal law is Self-help. Every country should provide its citizens with the right of private defense to protect his life, liberty, and property. This right also brings with itself numerous restrictions and limitations. Though the right of private defense was granted to the citizens as a weapon for self-defense but is often misused by people for their evil purposes.

In India, Section 96 to 106 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 provides for provisions relating to the right of Private Defence of person and property. This right can only be exercised when recourse to public authorities is not available to a person. One of the main principles on which the right of private defense is based is ‘reasonableness’ of the defense used. The extent to exercise the right of private defense depends on the reasonableness of the apprehension of the danger and not on the extent of actual danger.

Statutory Provision for self-defense in India

Section 96 of Indian Penal Code

This section talks about the things done in private defense and explains that nothing is an offense which is done in the exercise of the right of private defense.

Right of private defense is not an offense, and in fact, it is an act done in defense. The right of self-defense under Section 96 is not absolute but is clearly qualified by Section 99 which says that the right in no case extends to the inflicting of more harm than it is necessary for the purpose of defense. The burden of proof is upon the person who pleads for the right of private defense.

Consequently, this right cannot be allowed to be used as a shield to justify an act. A very careful weighing of the facts and circumstances of each case is required to decide as to whether the accused had, in fact, acted under this right. There is no place for assumptions on the part of the accused while exercising this right. There must be a reasonable apprehension about the possibility of an attack to exercise the right of private defense.

Section 97 of Indian Penal Code

Section 97 talks about the Right of private defense of the body and of Property. Each individual has a right to defend himself, i.e., his body or the body of any other person.  Similarly, he has the right to protect his property or else’s property, whether movable or immovable against an act which amounts to an offense of theft, robbery, mischief, or criminal trespass.

There must be an offense committed or attempted to be committed against a person who wants to invoke the plea of right of private defense. An injury caused to a man in question is not considered necessary for deciding the question of the accrual of the right of the private defense. Reasonable apprehension of causing grievous injury is absolutely enough to exercise the right of private defense.

Section 98 of Indian Penal Code

This section talks about Right of private defense against the act of a person of unsound mind, etc. The right of private defense also exists in cases which would not result into an offense due to the want of maturity of understanding, the unsoundness of mind or the intoxication of the person doing that act, or by reason of any misconception on behalf of the person. Every person has the same right to private defense against the act which he would have if the act was an offense.

Section 99 of Indian Penal Code

Section 99 limits the exercise of the right of private defense. It lays down the various conditions under which the right of private defense has to be exercised or invoked.

The first three clauses of section 99 provide that this right cannot be invoked when:

• a public servant acting in good faith exercises his legal duty not giving rise to a reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt,
• any person acting the direction of a public servant in good faith exercises his legal duty not giving rise to a reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt,
• reasonable time exists to resort help of public authorities.
• There must be reasonable grounds to b believe that the act done was done by a person under public authority.

Section 100 of Indian Penal Code

Sec 100 specifies seven situations in the exercise of the right to private defense of the body extend to causing death. The right of private defense of the body extends to the voluntary causing of death or of any other harm to the assailant if the offense is of nature herein described:

• Such an assault may reasonably cause the apprehension of death
• Such an assault may reasonably cause the apprehension of grievous hurt
• An assault with the intention of committing rape
• An assault with the intention of gratifying unnatural lust
• Assault having the intention of abducting or kidnapping
• An assault with the intention of wrongfully confining a person which may reasonably cause him to apprehend that he will not be able to take protection from public authorities for his release.
• An act or attempt to throw acid

Section 101 of Indian Penal Code

This section prescribes for when the right of self-defense extends to causing any harm other than death. If the offense is not of the nature mentioned in the above section, the right of private defense of the body does not extend to the voluntary causing of death to the assailant but does extend, to the voluntary causing to the assailant of any harm other than death.

Read Also: Voluntary Causing Hurt : Provision and Punishment

Section 102 of Indian Penal Code

Section 102 deals with Commencement and continuance of the right of private defense of the body. As soon as a reasonable apprehension of danger arises to the body from an attempt or threat to commit the offense even though the offense may not have been committed, the right of private defense commences. And it continues as long as the apprehension of danger to the body continues. This apprehension should be real and reasonable.

In Kala Singh case, the deceased was a strong man of a dangerous character. Previously in a fight with the accused, he threw the accused on the ground, pressed him hard and bit him. The accused took up a light hatchet and gave three blows of the same on the brute’s head. The deceased died after three days of this fight. It was held that the circumstances raised a strong apprehension of danger in the mind of the accused that he would be killed otherwise. This apprehension was real and reasonable and not timid and fancy, and so his exercise of the right of private defense is justified.

Section 103 of Indian Penal Code

This section provides for when the right of private defense of property extends to causing death. Whereas sec 100 provides for the exercise of the right of private defense of the body extends to causing death. The right of private defence of the property also extends to death when voluntarily caused or if any harm is caused in the form of an offense. Provided such an offense is in the form of the following descriptions, namely:

• Robbery
• House-breaking by night
• Mischief by fire committed on any building, tent or vessel, which building, tent or vessel is used as a human dwelling, or as a place for the custody of property
• Theft, mischief, or house-trespass

Section 104 of Indian Penal Code

It says that if the committing or attempting to commit any offense leads to the exercise of the right of self-defense, then such a right does not extend to the voluntary causing of death but extends to the voluntary causing to the wrongdoer of any harm other than death. Provided that the offense is not of any other nature as described in the previous section.

Section 105 of Indian Penal Code

Section 105 prescribes the commencement and continuance of the right of private defense of property. The commencement of the right of private defense of property takes place when a reasonable apprehension of danger to the property takes place. Continuation of this right against theft takes place until the offender affects his retreat with the property or the property has been recovered. Continuation of the right of private defense against robbery continues as long as the offender causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt.

Section 106 of Indian Penal Code Right

This section mentions that private defense against deadly assault when there is a risk of harm to an innocent person. If in the exercise of the right of private defense by a person against an assault causes reasonable apprehension of death, the defender so situated, cannot effectually exercise the right of private defense without risk of harm to an innocent person his right or private defense extends to the running of that risk.

The obstacle is the doubt which exists in the mind of the defender if he is entitled to exercise his right even when there is a possibility of some innocent persons being harmed by his actions. According to this Section, in case of an assault which causes a reasonable apprehension of death, if the defender is facing a situation where there exists a risk of harm to an innocent person, there is no restriction on him to exercise his right of defense, and thus he is entitled to run that risk.

Conclusion

The right of private defense is a weapon to the citizens of India for their self-defense but is often used by many people for evil purposes or unlawful purposes. It is the court’s duty to make sure if the right was exercised in good faith or not.

The extent to avail the right of private defense depends on the real apprehension of danger and not on actual danger. This right can be extended only in some situations to a certain degree. The amount of force to be used should only be the amount necessary to counter the attack.

Eliminate Your Fears And Doubts About Concept Of Lifting Of Corporate Veil

Introduction To Lifting of Corporate Veil

The corporate veil is a concept which provides that the personality of a company has to be treated separately from that of its shareholders.  It also protects the shareholders from being held personally liable for the company’s debts and other obligations. The Cambridge Dictionary defines corporate veil as the idea that a company’s managers or shareholders are not legally responsible for the action of the company: Shareholders may hide behind the corporate veil, assured that their liability does not extend beyond the value of their shares.

The essential term that needs to be understood for this concept is what a company means. Section 2(20) of the Companies Act, 2013 defines a company as a company incorporated under the Companies Act 2013 or any previous company law.  A company is a separate legal entity and has a personality of its own.

This feature was established by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Rustom Cavasjee Cooper vs. Union of India. The court stated that “a company registered under the Companies Act is a legal person, separate and distinct from its individual members. Property of the company is not the property of the shareholders”.

But this protection is not impenetrable, under the legal concept of the lifting of the corporate veil, the courts may hold the shareholders liable for the company’s obligations. At many times it happens that the corporate identity of a company is used to commit some fraud or illegal activity. In this situation, the concept of the lifting of the corporate veil is initiated. The corporate personality of the company is disregarded in order to look out who were the people involved in that fraudulent act. In simple words, the veil of separate corporate personality is lifted and the real culprits behind the veil are held liable, as an exception to the rule of protection under a corporate shell. In the United States, there are two important theories prescribed for the creation of piercing standard-

• Alter ego theory- consider (if there is) the distinctive boundaries between a corporation and it’s shareholders.
• Instrumentality theory- examines if the corporation has been used in any way by its shareholders for their own benefits instead of the corporate.

The basic concept of the lifting of the corporate veil can be categorized broadly under two categories-

1. Statutory Provisions
2. Judicial interpretation

1. Statutory Provisions

The Companies Act, 2013 provides various provisions which point out the person which should be held liable for the fraud or illegal activity. Section 2(60) of the act states that these people (directors or key managerial positions) are to be referred to as “officer who is in default”. Some of these provisions are listed below.

• Company’s name- When the approved name of the company is used, it makes the contract legally binding. If any representative or shareholder of the company enters in incorrect details of the company and sign on behalf of the company, should be held liable.
• Misstatement of the prospectus- If a person publishes false or untrue statements in a company’s prospectus, that person would be punished under Section 26 (9), Section 34 and Section 35 of the Act.
• Investigation of ownership of the company- section 216 of the Act states that inspectors can be appointed to investigate, by the central government, on matters relating to the company.
• Liability for fraudulent conduct- Section 339 of the Act provides that if it appears that fraudulent activities were being carried out in the name of the company, the court can hold the people involved liable.
• Inducing persons to invest- Section 36 of the Act states that any person who by false and deceptive measures, induces some other person to enter into an agreement will be held personally liable under Section 447 of the Act.

2. Judicial Interpretation

Besides Statutory provisions, the judiciary has played an important role in lifting the corporate veil as well. Some cases where the judiciary performed its role are listed below.

• In Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. the State of Bihar, the Supreme Court of India stated that a company is not allowed to lay a claim on the fundamental rights on the basis that the company is an aggregation of citizens. When a company is formed, the business that is carried by the company is the business of the company only, and not of the citizens who formed the company.
• Judiciary is empowered to lift the corporate veil if the conduct of a company is in conflict with the public interest. In Jyoti Limited vs Kanwaljit Kaur Bhasin And Anr., the Delhi High Court held that corporate veil can be lifted if the representative of the company commits contempt of the Court.

Conclusion

Many individuals try to misuse their power under the corporate shell for their own benefits as they are protected under the corporate veil. But the concept of the lifting of the corporate veil is a powerful weapon in the hands of the judiciary. It makes sure that no individual gets to perform illegal acts under the company name and walk free. It acts as a watchdog over companies. The personality of a company is surely separate from that of the shareholders of the company, but this doesn’t mean that the shareholders can do wrong hiding behind the corporate veil.

References-

• Companies Act, 2013
• 1970 A.I.R. 564
• [1964] 34 Comp. Cas. 458(SC), AIR 1965 SC 40
• 1987 CriLJ. 1282
  
  

Original blog is published at LEGODESK  please read the blog for more content and for legal help

Legodesk is a legal practice management tool using which lawyers can manage their matters, win new clients and do their legal research all in one platform. Legodesk’s unique case management features helps to keep your legal practice organized and accessible everywhere.

10 Facts That Nobody Told You About Type Of Privacy Torts

There are laws in each state which balances the Right to Privacy of every individual. Even if any media or newspaper seeks the privacy of anyone’s life, then they will be the charge for the invasion of privacy.

There are four types of Privacy Torts

1. Intrusion

This is the first type of Invasion of Privacy. This occurs when someone enters or spreads into another person’s private life. This includes a person recording the private conversation of another person’s that too without his/her knowledge, trespassing to another person’s property and taking photographs without his/her consent, and this counts as violating someone’s Right to Solitude. Even, news sources like Media have to be careful about the privacy of another person. If they intrude to the private life of public figures then they will be sued for invasion of privacy.

Read Also – New laws in India

2. Public Disclosure

It is the second type of Private Torts. This occurs when a person publishes embarrassing, hurtful, and offensive facts about another person’s life. If the media brings the private facts of the high-profile person to know of the public, then that person may sue them for the invasion of privacy. The media source may find guilty by the Court for Invasion of Privacy depending upon how they (Media) have obtained the information.

3. False Light

It is the third type of Private Torts. This occurs when a person produces the false statement or depicts the things in a false manner about another person. For Example, A writer distorts, embellishes or fictionalizes a story; he can characterize some random person in a way that perverts the truth. Defamation and false light publication are two completely different things. A person can fictionalize some random person or a known person in a story but without any malicious intention.

See more: Right to privacy

4. Appropriation

It is the fourth and last type of Private Torts. This occurs when someone uses the person’s image or name for the unauthorized commercial use that too without his/her consent, knowledge, and approval. For Example, A company cannot use the name or image of the celebrity for endorsement of a product without his/her consent. Photographs and images used in a news channel or newspaper, images and pictures of any incidental references used in the books and films, the Court will not consider them an appropriation. But if the media is using a person’s name, even only the part of his name without his/her approval and consent, then he/she may sue the media for invasion of privacy.

10 Preparations You Should Make Before Using Condonation Of Delay Under Section 5 Of Limitation Act.

Introduction To Condonation of Delay

The term ‘condonation of delay’ is characterized under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in the event of offers. Condonation of delay is the extension of the prescribed period in specific cases. Section 5 in The Limitation Act, 1963 states “Extension of prescribed period in certain cases. —Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), may be admitted after the prescribed period, if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period. ”

Grounds for Condonation of Delay

Courts require to be persuaded with an adequate reason so as to get the Condonation of delay. A few grounds behind considering (or not considering) for the condonation include:

• Ailment: Including the nature and severity of disease and facts encompassing the failure to act.
• Detainment: Mere detainment is certifiably not an adequate reason. Different reasons ought to satisfy the court
• Other inadequate grounds: Poverty, Parda Nasihn Lady, Minors, Ignorance of the law, negligence (Vigilantibus non-dormant bus Jura subvenient) and so forth.
• Other adequate grounds: Mistake of court, mislead by rulings, the mistake of counsel, the mistake of law, delay in getting copies and so forth.

Application for Condonation of Delay.

Before the Honourable District Court at _______________(enter station)

AS No.(enter appeal suit number and year)

Appellant:(enter name)

Respondent:(enter name) 

AFFIDAVIT

1. I am the appellant in the above appeal and the petitioner in the IA.
2. The above appeal is given against the judgment and decree of ______court in OS No._____(give case number) against the appellant stating to _______(briefly state the order). I know the facts of the case.
3. The appeal ought to have been filed on _______(date). But as I(appellant) was________(enter the sufficient reason) the appeal could not be filed within the said period. Hence a delay of _____days is caused in filing the appeal. The said delay is not due to my wilful default.
4. I have filed a separate petition along with this for condoning the delay of __days in filing the appeal which has to be allowed. Hence it is prayed that this honorable court may be pleased to condone the delay of ___days in filing the appeal by allowing the IA filed herewith for the same unless I will be put to irreparable injuries and loss. All that is stated above are true and correct to the best of my belief.

Dated this the ______(date)

Sd/-Deponent

Mob No:

Email: 

Condonation of delay under section 119 (2) (b) of Income Tax Act

“The Board may, if it considers it desirable or expedient so to do for avoiding genuine hardship in any case or class of cases, by general or special order, authorize any income-tax authority, not being a Commissioner (Appeals) to admit an application or claim for an exemption, deduction, refund or any other relief under this Act after the expiry of the period specified by or under this Act for making such application or claim and deal with the same on merits in accordance with law.”

Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has given the powers to income tax authorities to acknowledge the income tax return for a financial year even after the expiry of the due date.

Condonation of Delay Scheme 2018 appeared on 29th December 2018 to give one last chance to the executives of the defaulting organizations who because of the reason of non-filing of financial statements and annual returns were held liable and disqualified. The default with the registrar of the organizations proceeds for a long time.

This scheme refers to the companies registered under the Companies Act,2013.

Important points in respect to Condonation of Delay Scheme 2018

The applicability of the scheme is to organizations which are in default (other than those organizations whose names had been struck off from the registrar of the organizations under Section 248(5) of the Companies Act 2013. In the event that you are the organization whose name is as yet not struck down from the registrar of the organizations at that point:

• The DIN numbers of the executives who were disabled beforehand will be temporarily enabled with the goal that executives could file the documents.

• The organization in default must pay out statutory charges endorsed according to Section 403 of the Companies Act 2013 read with Companies (Registration offices and fees) Rules, 2014 for filling this overdue documents.

• Application expenses for recording the E-form CODS will be Rs. 30,000/ – (nominal for the defaulting directors)

• Those executives whose name isn’t found by the MCA21 registry records yet are associated with the default, they will not have the capacity to reactivate their DIN numbers and would not have the capacity to choose as executives of any organization.

• In the event that the defaulting organizations whose name have been struck down under the provision of Section 248 and 252 of the Companies Act, 2013.

Read Also: Section 185 of the companies act, 2013