JUDGMENT/ ORDER :

Prayer: Criminal Original Petitions are filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash the complaints in E.O.C.C.No.582 & 583 of 2017 on the file of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Economic Offences -II, Egmore, Chennai.

1. Criminal Original Petitions have been filed to quash the proceedings in E.O.C.C.Nos.582 & 583 of 2017, pending on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Economic Offence -II, Egmore, Chennai/trial Court.

2. Since the petitioner and the respondent are one and the issues are identical in both the petitions, this Court decides to dispose of the same, by way of common order.

3. Gist of the case in E.O.C.C.No.582 of 2017 is that the petitioner in his Income Tax Return for the Assessment Year 2007-08 admits a loss of Rs.2,87,82,522/-. The respondent conducted search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) on 29.01.2010. During the course of search operation, it was found that the petitioner was not maintaining proper and complete books of account for his business. Consequently, a notice under Section 153A of the Act was issued to the petitioner for the Assessment Year 2007-08 on 09.03.2011. In response to the notice under Section 153A of the Act, the petitioner filed his income tax return on 14.12.2011 admitting a total loss of Rs.1,38,26,780/-. Thus, the loss admitted by the petitioner in his original return filed on 31.10.2007 was Rs.2,87,82,522/-. But in the return filed on 14.12.2011 in response to notice under Section 153A of the Act was Rs.1,38,26,780/-. If a search under Section 132 of the Act was not conducted, the petitioner would not have come forward to offer additional income in the revised return. It is further alleged in the complaint that in accordance with the provision of Section 40(A)(3) of the Act, a sum of Rs.24,15,218 was disallowed. Accordingly, an order under Section 143(3) of the Act was passed on 30.12.2011 determining the total income at Rs.1,14,11,562/- after making an addition of Rs.24,15,218/-. The Assessing Officer simultaneously initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act and passed an order, dated 29.06.2012, levying penalty of Rs.31,30,000/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The petitioner contested the levy of penalty before the CIT(A)(c)-II and the CIT(A) vide order, dated 29.03.2014 in ITA.No.57/12-13 dismissed the appeal and upheld the action of Assessing Officer. Therefore, the petitioner paid the penalty on 23.06.2014.

4. Gist of the case in C.C.No.583 of 2017 is that the petitioner filed his return of income for the Assessment Year 2008-09 admitting a total income of Rs.31,31,710/- after setting off of brought forward business loss of Rs.2,86,23,462/- related to the Assessment year 2007-08. During the search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Act, it was found that the petitioner not maintained proper and complete books of account for his business. Hence, a notice under Section 153A of the Act was issued to the petitioner for the Assessment Year 2008-09 on 09.03.2011. In response to the notice, the petitioner filed his return of income for the Assessment Year 2008-09 on 14.12.2011 admitting a total loss of Rs.1,27,22,437/- after setting off of brought forward business loss of Rs.1,38,26,780/-. Thus, the loss admitted by the petitioner in his original return filed on 29.09.2008 was Rs.2,86,23,462/-. But in the return filed on 14.12.2011 in response to the notice under Section 153A of the Act, the business loss was Rs.1,38,26,780/-. Similarly the net profit also increased from Rs.2,38,14,396/- to Rs.2,63,23,846/-. The Assessing Officer passed penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) and 271A of the Act, dated 28.06.2012 levying minimum penalty of Rs.9,29,566/-. The petitioner contested the levy of penalty before the CIT(A)(C)-II and the CIT(A) vide order, dated 28.02.2014 in ITA.No.60/12-13, dated 28.02.2014 dismis