Allowed

J.Srinivasan v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Madras HC6 Jul 2026CRL MP/11377/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted suspension of sentence and bail to the petitioner convicted under Section 276 CC of the Income Tax Act. The Court found substantial grounds for revision, noted the petitioner's prior incarceration, and relied on Supreme Court precedents regarding liberty and pending appeals.

What did the court decide?

Suspension of sentence and bail granted subject to executing personal bond with two sureties of Rs.15,000/- each, monthly appearance before Addl. CM Magistrate, and surrender within three weeks.

J.Srinivasan Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax — Income Tax | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 06.07.2026

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED

¶5

Crl.MP.No.11377 of 2026

¶6

in Crl.RC.No.1342 of 2026

J. Srinivasan

Petitioner

The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax,

¶11

Central Circle 3(2), Investigation Wing, Room No.325, No.46, M.G.Road,

¶12

Chennai Respondent

¶13

Prayer:- Petition filed under Section 430 (1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), praying to suspend the sentence made under judgment dated 29.07.2024 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (EO II), Egmore, Chennai, E.O.C.C.No.603 of 2017 and the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, confirmed the order in C.A.No.632 of 2024, dated 24.02.2026 and release the petitioner on bail pending disposal of the above Criminal Revision.

¶14

For Revision Petitioner : Mr.P. Ramesh Kumar For Respondent :Mrs.N. Sheela, Senior Standing Counsel (Income Tax)

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

¶17

ORDER

¶18

1. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed, by the Revision Petitioner, praying to suspend the sentence, imposed on the Revision Petitioner, in Crl.A.No.632 of 2024, dated 24.02.2026, by Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, confirming the judgement of conviction and sentence and order, dated 29.07.2024, in EOCC.No.603 of 2017, passed by the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (EO-II), Egmore, Chennai and to enlarge the Petitioner on bail, till the disposal of the instant Criminal Revision Case.

¶19

2. By the impugned judgement of conviction and sentence and order of the Trial Court, the Revision Petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 276 CC of the Income Tax Act to undergo SI for a period up to two years and pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-. The fine amount was already paid. The impugned judgement of conviction and sentence and order of the Trial Court was confirmed by the lower appellate Court, by its impugned judgement of conviction and sentence and order.

¶20

Challenging the above said judgement of conviction and sentence and order of the lower appellate court, the Revision Petitioner has filed the above Criminal Revision Case, along with the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, seeking suspension of sentence and bail.

¶21

This Court heard Mr.P. Ramesh Kumar, the learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mrs. Sheela, Senior Standing counsel (Income Tax) for the Respondent and

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

¶24

considered their submissions and also perused materials placed before this Court.

¶25

The learned counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the important ingredient of section 276 CC is willful default on the part of the petitioner, but the trial court has failed to see that the complainant has not proved the necessary ingredients of the charge even by an iota of admissible and convincing evidence. The trial court failed to analyse the evidence of DW1 which had established the reasons why the returns were not filed within the time granted and the prosecution had failed to establish that the reasons given by the witness were either false or non-existent and in the absence of such failure, the complainant cannot call the return to be belatedly filed wilfully. Both the courts below have failed to consider the entire evidence, in a proper and perspective manner and that the judgments passed by both the Courts below were based on surmises and conjectures, without considering the entire evidence on record.

¶26

It is further argued that due to pendency of the criminal cases before this High Court, there is a blinking chance that in the near future, this Criminal Revision Case will be finally heard and decided. It is further submitted that there are arguable points in this Criminal Revision Case and the Revision Petitioner has a fair chance of success in this Criminal Revision Case. Thus, the learned

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

¶29

counsel for the Revision Petitioner has prayed for suspension of sentence and bail, till the disposal of this Criminal Revision Petition.

¶30

Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the Revision Petitioner have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the Revision Petitioner that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the Court, whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions, which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. The Revision Petitioner undertakes that in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in disposal of Revision.

¶31

The learned Senior Standing counsel (Income Tax) for the Respondent has opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and submits that the judgements passed by the Courts below are as per the law, after considering the entire evidence and thus, the relief sought by the Revision Petitioner, at this stage, be refused by this Court.

¶32

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner as well as the learned Senior Standing Counsel (Income Tax) for the Respondent, this Court is of the view that both the courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence on record and the impugned judgments were passed,

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

Further, it is observed that when the accused have been under incarceration for

¶35

without considering the entire materials placed before it and during the Trial, the Revision Petitioner was also on bail.

¶36

Further, it is observed that when the accused have been under incarceration for some time and when there are points in the Revision, which favour the accused, then the Courts should not shy from granting suspension of sentence, as the liberty of the individual would be at stake, if the revision results in acquittal at a later point of time. In this regard, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Rabi Prakash Vs. The State of Odhisha reported in 2023 Live Law (SC) 533 is of relevance.

¶37

The Revision Petitioner has raised substantial grounds in the Revision, which require detailed appraisal. Further, the Revision is not likely to be taken up in the near future. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the Revision Petitioner is entitled to the relief of suspension of sentence and bail.

¶38

Accordingly, pending the Criminal Revision Case, the relief of suspension of sentence and bail is granted to Revision Petitioner, namely, J. Srinivasan on the following conditions:-

¶39

i. The Revision Petitioner shall surrender before the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (EO II), Egmore, Chennai, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on such surrender, the Revision Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond, along with two sureties for a sum of Rs.15,000/- each and subject to furnishing an undertaking that he will co-operate in the hearing of the present Revision.

¶40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶41

ii. The Revision Petitioner and sureties shall affix their Photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the bond and the above said Court may obtain copies of their Aadhaar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity.

¶42

iii. The realization of fine, if any, shall also remain suspended during the pendency of the present Revision.

¶43

iv. The Revision Petitioner shall appear before the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (EO II), Egmore, Chennai once in every month, ie., on the first working day, commencing from the month of August 2026, at 10.30 a.m., until further orders.

¶44

On acceptance of his bail bonds and sureties, the Trial Court shall transmit

¶45

photostat copies thereof to this Court for being kept on records of this Revision.

¶46

With the above directions, this petition is ordered.

06.07.2026

Index:Yes/No

Web:Yes/No

Speaking/Non Speaking

¶51

msr

¶52

¶53

The Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (EO-II), Egmore,Chennai.

¶54

The Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai

¶55

The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax,Central Circle 3(2), Investigation Wing, Room No.325, No.46, M.G.Road, Chennai

¶56

The Senior Standing Counsel, (Income Tax)

¶57

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶58

SHAMIM AHMED, J.

¶59

msr

¶60

Crl.MP.No.11377 of 2026 in Crl.RC.No.1342 of 2026

¶61

06.07.2026

¶62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

J.Srinivasan v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J.Srinivasan v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Anbu Vs J.Indira

J.Srinivasan Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

D.Muralidharan Vs The Inspector of Police

Sathiya Vs State rep.by, Inspector of Police

J.Srinivasan Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

S.Vishwapathy Vs S.Priyadharshini