Managing Director, Inland Builders Private Limited v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Corporatecircle 2(2) Room

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 25.08.2021CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMARCRL.O.P.No.6244 of 2020and Crl.M.P.Nos. 3481 & 3482 of 2020 1.Inland Builders Private Limited, Represented by its Managing Director Damodaran, No.6 V block & 64, 4[th] Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai 600 040. 2.Damodaran Managing Director, Inland Builders Private Limited S/o Govindasamy 16/90 AC Block, 2ia street, Anna Nagar, Chennai 600 040. 3.Shanthi Managing Director, Inland Builders Private Limited W/o Govindasamy Damodaran 16/90 AC Block, 2od street, Anna Nagar, Chennai 600 040.... Petitioners Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax CorporateCircle 2(2) Room No.512, 5 Floor.Wanaparthy Block,121. Mahatma Gandhi Road,Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034.... RespondentPRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure to call for all the records andquash all the proceedings in E.O.C.C.No.497 of 2017 on the fileof the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore,E.O- II. For Petitioners: Mr.P.KumaresanFor Respondent : Mr.N.Baaskaran Special Public Prosecutor(Income Tax) ORDER The petitioners, who are accused in E.O.C.C.No.497 of 2017,facing prosecution for the offences under sections 276CC and276C (2) of the Income Tax Act, has filed this petition. 2. Heard Mr.P.Kumaresan, learned counsel for the petitionersand Mr.Baskaran, learned Special Public Prosecutor (Income Tax). 3. The complaint is that the petitioner company had filedself assessment tax on 29.11.2014 for the financial year 2013-14relevant to the assessment year 2014-15 which is defective fornon payment of self assessment tax under Section 140A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 for Rs.11,81,117/- before furnishing thereturn of income which constitutes an offence under Section 276CC and 276 C(2) of Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitionersis that the petitioners have paid the entire dues to the IncomeTax department along with interest. The payment details are asfollows: The abovesaid payment details has been admitted andacknowledged by the Deputy Commissioner of the Income Tax,Corporate Circle2(2), Chennai-34, vide his communication dated11.03.2020 to the Income Tax Officer (Prosecution). Despitereceipt of the due amount with interest, though the offence iscompoundable and can be withdrawn, the respondent had failed towithdraw the same. Hence, the petitioners are unnecessarilyfacing prosecution. Further he submitted that in the case ofPrem Dass Vs. Income Tax Officer, the Apex Court has held that apositive act on the part of the accused is required to beestablished to bring home the charge against the accused for theoffence under Section 276C(2) of the Act. In this case, thereis nothing to show that the petitioners have evaded the tax andindulged in evasion of tax. 5. The learned Special Public Prosecutor (Income Tax)vehemently objected for entertaining the petition for the reason https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ that the admitted case of the petitioners is that they had paidthe dues to the income tax department with interest afterlodging of the case. In this case, the complaint was filed on05.10.2017 and the final payment has been made only on19.03.2018. 5. The learned Special Public Prosecutor (Income Tax)vehemently objected for entertaining the petition for the reason https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ that the admitted case of the petitioners is that they had paidthe dues to the income tax department with interest afterlodging of the case. In this case, the complaint was filed on05.10.2017 and the final payment has been made only on19.03.2018. 6. Considering the submissions made and on a perusal of thematerials placed, it is not in dispute that the petitioners hadpaid the entire amount with interest to the Income Taxdepartment, which is confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner of theIncome Tax, Corporate Circle2(2), Chennai-34. The offencesalleged are only technical offences and there is no material toshow that there was any deliberate and conscious evasion of taxon the part of the petitioners. In view of the same, this Courtis of the view that the proceedings are liable to be quashed andaccordingly, quashed. Resultantly,this Criminal OriginalPetition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneouspetitions are also closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS II) //True Copy// sli Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Corporate Circle 2(2) Room No.512, 5 Floor, Wanaparthy Block, 121. Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. 2.The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, E.O- II. 3.The Public Prosecutor (Income Tax)High Court, Madras.High Court, Madras. +2ccs to Mr.P.Kumaresan, Advocate Sr No.43164 CRL.O.P.No.6244 of 2020and Crl.M.P.Nos. 3481 & 3482 of 2020 SSI (CO)PR (22/09/2021)