Case LawHigh Court › Crl Op/29403/2022 Of M/S.m.p.engineers v...

Crl Op/29403/2022 Of M/S.m.p.engineers v. The Income Tax Officer

High Court 01 Dec 2022 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · hc_cis_mas
Parties
Crl Op/29403/2022 Of M/S.m.p.engineers v. The Income Tax Officer
Date of order
01 Dec 2022
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Crl Op/29403/2022 Of M/S.m.p.engineers v. The Income Tax Officer, the High Court (2022) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.

Issue: In this circumstance, only if the petitioners are put on trial, it will come out whether the petitioners have intentionally evaded to pay tax or not.

Decision: With the above observation, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

Sections referenced in this judgment

The order — as passed by the High Court

Crl.O.P.No.29403 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 01.12.2022 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA Crl.O.P.No.29403 of 2022 and Crl.M.PNo.18013 of 2022 1. M/s.M.P.Engineers, Represented by the Partner Muruganantham, Door No.25, Nachimuthunagar, Ganapathy, Coimbatore – 641 006. 2. Muruganantham 3. K.Karpagavalli ...Petitioners The Income Tax Officer,Non-Corporate Ward 2(2),Income tax Office,63, Race course road,Coimbatore – 641 018. /vs/ ... Respondent Prayer :Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings in C.C.No.175 of 2018 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Coimbatore and quash the same. For Petitioners ... Ms.S.Pooja Shree Page 1 of 4 ORDER This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.175 of 2018. 2. The petitioners are the accused against whom the respondent has initiated a private complainant for the alleged offence under Section 276C(1) r/w. Section 278E of the Income Tax Act for the assessment of the year 2009-2010. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that materials does not disclose the fact that the petitioner had an intention to evade from paying tax; the case has been filed after a lapse of 8 years; the petitioner himself has made a representation for reassessment by stating that his books of accounts were seized by the Central Excise Department and in spite of his best efforts, he could not get the copies of the same and hence he could not pay the tax in time; their request was accepted and the reassessment order has also been issued; in that case, the petitioners' only submission is that the petitioners did have any intention to evade from paying tax. 4. It is learnt that the trial has commenced and the respondent was Page 2 of 4 Crl.O.P.No.29403 of 2022 examined as PW1 and documents have also been marked. In this circumstance, only if the petitioners are put on trial, it will come out whether the petitioners have intentionally evaded to pay tax or not. Since I do not find any valid ground to quash the proceedings by invoking powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., I feel it is appropriate for the petitioners to participate in trial. The petitioners are at liberty to raise all the submissions made before this Court, as their defence in trial. 5. With the above observation, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 01.12.2022Index: Yes/NoInternet: Yes/NoSpeaking/Non speaking ordervum Page 3 of 4 Page 4 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.29403 of 2022 R.N.MANJULA ,J.vum Crl.O.P.No.29403 of 2022 andCrl.M.PNo.18013 of 2022 01.12.2022
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ Defend a reassessment (Sec 148) notice → 💬 Ask our CA
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation. Full disclaimer & Terms.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan