The main legal point established is that deliberate concealment of income and filing returns after significant delays can lead to prosecution under the Income Tax Act.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: These Criminal Original Petitions in Crl.O.P.Nos.23069 to 23071 of 2014 are filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to call for records in proceeding in E.O.C.C. No. 36, 37 and 38 of 2014 relating to the Assessment year 1999-2000, 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 respectively in the court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Economic Offence - I, Chennai and quash the same.

These Criminal Original Petitions in 29667, 29668, 29669 of 201 are filed under Section 482 CrPC to call for records in proceeding in E.O.C.C. No. 107, 108,109 of 2015 relating to the Assessment Year 2002-2003, 2003-2004, 2004-2005 respectively in the court of Additional Cheif Metropolitan MagistrateCourt, Economic Offence I, Chennai and quash the same.)

Common Order:

1. These complaints are filed for the offences under Sections 276C(1), 276CC and 277 of Income Tax Act, 1961.

2. Crl.O.P.No.23069 of 2021:

The complaint in E.O.C.C.No.36 of 2014 is in respect of Assessment Year 1999-2000. The relevant accounting year is the finance year ended on 31.03.1999. Petitioner/accused is being assessed as individual having business income from his property concerned in the name and style of M/s.Herms India Limited. He is engaged in the business as a dealer in antibiotics, chemicals, prawn feeds and derives income thereof, besides having income from other sources. There was survey action/operation under Section 133(A) of Income Tax Act, 1961 on 20.10.2004, 14.12.2004 and 15.12.2004 in the business premises of the petitioner. It is detected during the survey that the accused despite having huge taxable income, has not been in the habit of filing return on or before the due date and pay the tax. He was not discharging his statutory obligation in compulsory maintenance of accounts and auditing under Section 44 A-B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by furnishing to the department tax report in the form C-3(d) within the stipulated time limit. In the course of survey operation under Section 133(A) of Income Tax Act, 1961, it was found that the accused had concealed income and admitted the undisclosed income of Rs.37,23,025 /- for the assessment year 1999-2000. A statutory notice under Section 143 of the Act dated 23.02.2005 was issued calling upon the petitioner to furnish his return of income within 30 days from the date of receipt of notice. The said notice was received by him on 25.02.2005. In response, petitioner furnished his return on 07.04.2005 admitting the income of Rs.33,04,420/-. The petitioner is under statutory obligation to furnish the Income Tax Return for the assessment year 1999-2000 voluntarily on or before 31.10.1999, under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. He filed the return only, after the survey and in response to the notice dated 07.04.2005, after the delay of 68 months. But for the survey, petitioner would not have furnished his return of income. The assessment was completed on 31.03.2006 and for the total income of Rs.33,04,420/- and the tax payable was determined at Rs.20,99,279/-. Penalty under Section 279(1)(C) of the Income Tax Act to the tune of Rs.9,70,159/- was imposed and was confirmed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Petitioner is a habitual defaulter in complying with the statutory obligation in maintaining regular book of accounts, audit accounts, filing the return of income on or before statutory due date and payment of tax. For the assessment year 1999- 2000, the return of income was filed after survey under Section 133(A) of Income Tax Act, 1961 with the delay of 68 months. Therefore, the petitioner is liable to be punished for the offence under Sections 276C(1), 276CC and 277 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

3. General allegations remaining the same, facts relevant to the other cases, in brief, are as follows:-

4. EOCC No.37 of 2014 in Crl.O.P.No.23070 of 2014

This complaint is in respect of assessment year 2000-2001. During the survey it was detected that the accused, inspite of having huge taxable income h