Delhi High court today extended till August 18 the stay on trial court proceedings against Sahara chief Subrata Roy, now in Tihar Jail, in an income tax case for allegedly not filing returns for a group company for the assessment year 2013-14.
Justice Suresh Kait said the interim order of April 10, by which the proceedings and bailable warrants were stayed against Roy and two directors of Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd (SICCL), J B Roy and Ranoj Das Gupta, would continue.
The court extended relief to the Sahara chief and three others after they sought time to submit their reply to the affidavit filed by the IT department.
The IT department in its affidavit has contended that it filed a complaint in the trial court against Roy and the others as they had not filed their returns.
In its affidavit, it also said that action was taken after issuing a show cause notice to them and that the amounts claimed by the company and its directors as losses were not correct.
By its April 10 order, the court had also stayed the proceedings against SICCL which was made an accused in the case.
Besides Subrata Roy, J B Roy and Gupta have approached the court after warrants were issued against them, while another director, O P Srivastava, has also 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 on April 15.
It had also issued production warrant for Subrata Roy and directed the jail authorities to produce him before the court.
The IT department had on February 13 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 were 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.