Petitioner sought quashing of an E.O.C.C. in an income tax offence case, claiming innocence and wrong accused persons. High Court held allegations involve substantial tax, requiring trial court enquiry for defences, and dismissed the petition.
Petitioner sought quashing of E.O.C.C.No.394 of 2018; High Court dismissed the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10.12.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
Crl.O.P.No.30544 of 2019
and
Crl.M.P.Nos.16223 and 16558 of 2019
Audi Munusamy
...Petitioner
Vs.
Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward-15(1), 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai - 600 034.
...Respondent
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records in E.O.C.C.No.394 of 2018, on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, EO-II, Egmore, Chennai and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Manimaran
For Respondent : Mr.N.Baskaran Special Public Prosecutor (for IT)
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to call for the records in E.O.C.C.No.394 of 2018, on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, EO-II, Egmore, Chennai and quash the same.
by him as business receipts assessable under the head of business income and thus quantifying a demand of Rs.5,08,20,440/-. The petitioner submits that the assessment order along with notice of demand was served on the accused on 31.12.2016. Further, penalty order Under Section 271 A of the IT Act, 1961, was issued to the petitioner on 30.06.2017 raising a demand of Rs.25,000/-. The petitioner submits that he had preferred an appeal against the assessment order under Section 143(3) r/w Section 147, dated 27.12.2016 and the same was dismissed on the notion that the entire income was classified under the head "Capital gains". Thus after giving effect to the order of CIT(A), the demand was quantified as Rs.5,08,45,000/and such failure to pay tax constitutes an offence under Section 276C(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3.Now, the petitioner submits that the present E.O.C.C.No.394 of 2018 was filed against it is unnecessarily frivolous litigation and it is not liable to be prosecuted. Hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings since the respondent has not initiated proceedings against the correct persons including Banumathi (Principal) and Rajesh kumar (power agent) .
4.But the respondent raised his objection stating that already based upon the entire investigation came to understand that there is a sum of Rs.5,08,45,000/- which was classified under the head "capital gains". After giving effect to the order of CIT (A), the demand was quantified as Rs.5,08,45,000/and such failure to pay tax constitutes an offence under Section 276C(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
5.On seeing the nature of allegation levelled against the petitioner and others which cannot be quashed in the instant case, for the reason that there is a sum of Rs.5,08,45,000/tax is included in this matter. A detailed enquiry is required in support of the oral evidence and if the petitioner is having any such defence, he has to raise the same before the trial Court.
6.Accordingly, this Criminal Original petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-VIII)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
ub
To
+1cc to M/s.D.Manimaran, Advocate, S.R.No.65882
+1cc to M/s.N.Baskaran, Public Prosecutor for Income Tax, S.R.No.65962
Crl.O.P.No.30544 of 2019
KSM(CO) RGA(10/01/2022)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an offence under Section 276C(2) of the Income Tax Act can be quashed since the allegation involves inclusion of tax under capital gains.
Whether the petitioner is the correct person to be prosecuted instead of Banumathi and Rajesh Kumar.
Whether detailed enquiry and oral evidence are required to determine defences regarding the allegation.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Audi Munusamy
Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward-15(1)
T.V.ThamilSelvi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
