Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J.
Raman Krishna Kumar - Appellant
Versus
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle-3, Chennai - Respondent
CRL.OP. No. 25561 of 2016 & CRL.MP. Nos. 12438 & 12439 of 2016
Decided on : 26-10-2021
Income Tax Act, 1961 - 276C[1], 139, 148, 140A, 277, 153A, 278-E ,142 and 148 - Learned counsel stated that income of petitioner for Financial but there had been a mistake in Form 26AS filed by Company on behalf of petitioner wherein income was entered as It was also stated learned counsel that petitioner had paid tax amounting to It was also pointed out that petitioner had thereafter left said Company and he was not aware of mistake which had crept in Form 26AS and only when notices had been issued did petitioner come to know about particular mismatch between information contained in Form 16 and Form 26AS. Thereafter petitioner had sent a reply on for Show Cause Notice - Whether there was wilful failure to furnish return is a matter which is to be adjudicated factually by Court which deals with prosecution case -Held, Petitioner herein that there was no wilful act of non disclosure of income - As a matter of fact, it is further contention that not just was tax paid but Self Assessment Tax had also been paid - However it is seen that it is consistent case of respondent/Department that petitioner had not explained high level transactions in purchase and sale of mutual funds and transactions in credit cards - present case are examined, the petitioner had laid the blame on his previous employer stating that there has been a mismatch in the income earned as given in Form 16 and as uploaded in Form 26AS. It had also been stated that this was not brought to knowledge of petitioner since he had left employment - It was also stated that even though Show Cause Notices have been received, he was under bona fide impression that since tax had been paid, no further action is required to be clarified from his end - Court cannot presume that petitioner herein is innocent of any of offences complained - It is for petitioner to establish such innocence - Platform for establishing such innocence is Court where trial is to be conducted and in present case that particular Court - Petition Dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records in EOCC No.121/2016 on the file of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Economic Offences-I, Egmore, Chennai and quash the same.)
1. This petition has been filed by the accused in EOCC.No.121/2016 now pending on the file of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate/Economic Offences-I, Egmore, Chennai, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash further proceedings in the said Calendar Case.
2. The respondent herein had occasion to file a complaint before the said jurisdictional Court against the petitioner herein for offences under Sections 276CC and 276C[1] of the Income Tax Act, 1961, [hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1961”] with respect to the Assessment Year 2013 -2014.
3. It is the case of the respondent that the petitioner herein who had taxable income for the Financial Year 2012 - 2013/Assessment Year 2013 -2014, had not filed the Annual Return as mandated under Section 139[1] of the Act, 1961, nor under the extended time under Section 139[4] of the said Act. It had been stated that the petitioner herein had received substantial income in the form of salary amounting to Rs.68,71,731/- and had also indulged in high end transactions with respect to purchase and sale of mutual funds and with respect to credit card transactions.
4. It is the contention of the respondent that owing to non-filing of the Income Tax Returns, suspicions had arisen over the source of funds for such transactions. It had also been contended that several Show Cause Notices had been issued, but there was no reply by the petitioner herein. Finally, the petitioner had condescended to give a reply on 02.05.2016 for the Show Cause Notice dated 26.04.2016. The respondent contended that the petitioner had deliberately not filed the Income Tax Returns within the stipulated period and therefore, the respondent was not able to assess the income for the escaped assessment, for which the Return should have been submitted.
5. In view of the above facts, complaining that the petitioner herein had committed offences under Section 276CC and 276C[1] of the Income Tax Act, 1961, with respect to the Assessment Year 2013 -2014, a complaint, as aforesaid, had been preferred before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate/EO-I, Egmore, Chennai, which had been taken cognizance as EOCC.No.121/2016.
6. This petition has been filed seeking to quash the said Calendar Case.
7. Heard arguments advanced by Mr.Naveen Kumar Murthi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.L.Murali Krishnan, learned Special Public Prosecutor [Income Tax] appearing for the respondent.
8. Mr.Naveen Kumar Murthi, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the petitioner was not able to file the Returns owing to the fact that the petitioner was under the bona fide impression that his erstwhile employer, namely, ITW India Limited, where he was working as General Manager [Automotive Group] during the years 2012-2014, would have filed the Tax Returns in the normal course. Learned counsel stated that the income of the petitioner for the Financial Year 2012 -2013 was Rs.45,07,595/-, but, there had been a mistake in Form 26AS filed by the Company on behalf of the petitioner wherein the income was entered as Rs.68,71,731/-. It was also stated by the learned counsel that the petitioner had paid tax amounting to Rs.10,21,101/-. It was also pointed out that the petitioner had, thereafter left the said Company and he was not aware of the mistake which had crept in Form 26AS and only when notices had been issued, did the petitioner come to know about this particular mismatch between the information contained in Form 16 and Form 26AS. Thereafter, the petitioner had sent a reply on 02.05.2016 for the Show Cause Notice dated 26.04.2016.
9. Learned counsel submitted that however, the petitioner received yet another notice dated 20.05.2016 under Section 148 of the Act, 1
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
