New Delhi: The Delhi High court today extended till July 2 the trial court proceedings against Sahara Chief Subrata Roy, now lodged in Tihar Jail, in an Income Tax case for allegedly not filing returns for a group company for the assessment year 2013-14. Besides Roy, Justice Manmohan Singh also extended stay on the proceedings and the bailable warrants issued against J B Roy, Ranoj Das Gupta, both directors of Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd.
“The proceedings shall stay and the process (warrant) issued shall also be stayed till July 2,” the court said. The court extended relief to Sahara chief and three others after the IT department sought more time to file their replies.
It also stayed the proceedings against Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd, which was made an accused in the case. Besides Subrata Roy, the company’s directors — J B Roy and Gupta — have approached the court after the trial court issued warrants against them.
Another director, O P Srivastava, has however, moved court seeking quashing of the trial court proceedings. On March 24, the trial court had issued bailable warrants against J B Roy and Gupta for their failure to appear before it and had sought the presence of all the accused before it on April 15.
It had also issued production warrant of Subrata Roy and directed the jail authorities to produce him before the court. However, the high court on April 10 stayed the trial court proceedings.
The IT department, on February 13 this year, had filed a complaint in the trial court against the company and its directors, Subrata Roy, J B Roy, O P Srivastava and Ranoj Das Gupta for not filing the return of the company for 2013-14.
They have been booked for offence under Section 276 CC of the IT Act, which deals with failure to furnish return of income in due time. The court had earlier taken cognisance of the complaint and issued summons to the five accused seeking their presence.
The income tax return was not filed by them till the time of filing of the complaint and cognisance taken by the court. The IT department’s complaint said several notices were issued to the firm and its directors. In their letters, the accused had sought time to file the return but did not do so even after they were granted time.
Thereafter, the complaint was filed in the court, it said.