Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

These petitions have been filed to quash the proceedings in E.O.CC.Nos.130, 134, 135, 131, 132 & 133 of 2016 pending on the file of the Hon'ble Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, EO-II, Egmore, Chennai.

2. Mr.S.S.Rajesh, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an individual engaged in business of arranging finance, dealing with bricks, conducting chit fund, trade old boxes, waster paper assessed to tax by the respondent herein under pan No.AIGPD7898D. The respondent defacto complainant filed complaint in pursuance of the sanction of the Principal Director of Income Tax(Investigation), Tamil Nadu & Pondicherry under Section 277 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The complaint is with respect to assessment years 2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-12, 2012-2013, 2013-2014 and 2014- 2015. The petitioner did not disclose his actual income of business transactions and search was conducted and found that the petitioner did not maintain documents as per the accounting practice and entire transactions were done in cash. On confession of the petitioner, his statement was recorded and disclosed his money lending and chit business. Further allegation is that the petitioner submitted that a sum of http://www.judis.nic.in Rs.35 crores was not disclosed as income income for the assessment year 2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-12, 2012-2013, 2013-2014 and 2014- 2015. Therefore, the petitioner wilfully made false statement of return of income tax filed in his individual capacity and wilfully under reported the income earned. It is punishable under Section 227 Income Tax Act and liable for prosecution as such show cause notice was issued on 14.03.2016 and the petitioner issued reply and it was not plausible and not tenable according to the complainant. Therefore, the respondent complainant preferred a complaint for the offence under Section 277 of Income Tax Act.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is absolutely no prima facie to entertain the complaint as against the petitioner. There are certain procedural irregularities which are carried out by the complainant in initiating the present impugned proceedings and the investigation being there is no locus to initiate prosecution against the petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioner never had an intention to evade income tax as alleged by the complainant and as such the learned Magistrate ought not to have taken cognizance for the offence under Section 277 of Income Tax Act. Therefore, he prayed for quashment of the entire proceedings in E.O.CC.Nos.130, 134, 135, 131, http://www.judis.nic.in 132 & 133 of 2016 pending on the file of the Hon'ble Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, EO-II, Egmore, Chennai.

4. Per Contra, Mrs.M.Sheela, Special Public Prosecutor for Income Tax appearing for the respondent contended that the petitioner failed to disclose his entire income for the assessment year 2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-12, 2012-2013, 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 to the tune of Rs.35 crores. Therefore, it is punishable under Section 277 of Income Tax Act. She further submitted that the petitioner did not disclose his money lending and chit business in his income tax returns. Therefore, a search was conducted on the office premises of the petitioner group of companies along with his residence and found that the petitioner did not maintain documents as per the accounting practice and the entire transaction was done in cash. The petitioner has wilfully made false statement of return of income filed in the individual capacity and wilfully under reported the income earned by the petitioner. Therefore, there is absolutely no merit in the quash petition and sought for dismissal of the same.

5. Heard Mr.S.S.Rajesh, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.M.Sheela, Special Public Prosecutor for Income Tax appearing for the respondent.

http://www.judis.nic.in

6. In all the petitions, the petitioner is accused for non disclosing the income to the tune of Rs.35 crores for the assessment years 2009- 2010, 2010-2011, 2011-12, 2012-2013, 2013-2014 and 2014-2015. The present complaint has been lodged as against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 277 of Income Tax Act. It is also seen that the petitioner did not disclose his money lending and chit business in his returns of income and declared false statement of returns of income filed in his individual capacity and wilfully under reported the income earned by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the judgment in the case of Arun Arya Vs. Income Tax Officer in CRMC.No.205 of 2015 dated 28.09.2018, wherein Jammu & Kashmir High Court has held as follows: