R.k.kanhiayalal v. The Assistant Commissionerof Income Tax, Chennai

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.SELVAMCRL.RC.No.1219/2010 R.K.Kanhiayalal.. Petitioner Versus The Assistant Commissionerof Income Tax, Chennai... Respondent Criminal Revision filed under section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C.,against the order dated 18.10.2010 passed by the learnedAdditional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, , Egmore, Chennaiin Crl.MP.No.1613/2010 in EOCC No.178/2005 dismissing thepetition for discharge u/s.245[1] Cr.P.C. For Petitioner :No representationFor Respondent :No representationORDER Challenging the order of dismissal of the discharge petitionin Crl.MP.No.1613/2010 in EOCC No.178/2005 by the learnedAdditional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, , Egmore,Chennai, dated 18.10.2010, the present revision has been filed. 2In brief, the case of the prosecution is that thepetitioner/accused, pursuant to a search conducted at hisresidence and the business premises and subsequent to noticeissued u/s.156BC of the Income Tax Act on 13.02.2002, followed byreminders of 11.10.2002, 30.01.2003 and 27.07.2003, calling uponthe accused to file the Block Return of income for the period01.04.2001 to 28.12.2001 in respect of the Block Assessment on orbefore 04.09.2002, has failed to furnish the Block Return ofincome and also failed to take xerox copies of the seizedmaterials despite the specific permission granted by therespondent/complainant on 20.10.2003 and further, the said BlockReturn of income was filed by the accused belatedly. Hence, thecomplaint in EOCC.No.178/2005. 3Before the trial Court, the prosecution examined threewitnesses and marked 32 exhibits. The accused filed https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Crl.MP.No.1613/2010 in EOCC.No.178/2005 to discharge him from thecase and the Court below, upon considering the facts andmaterials placed before it, dismissed the said petition. Hence,this revision. 4There is no representation on either side.5ThisrevisionchallengesthedismissalofCrl.MP.No.1613/2010 in EOCC No.178/2005, a petition seekingdischarge. The respondent has alleged the commission of theoffence u/s.276 CC of the Income Tax Act, in that thepetitioner/accused has failed to submit the Block Returns ofincome, despite notice under section 158BC of the Act. Indismissing the discharge petition, the Court below has observedthat the question whether belated submission of the Block Returnwas willful or wanton or involved mens rea, has to be decidedonly after the completion of the trial and that at a preliminarystage, it cannot go deep with the evidence. This Court finds no error in the said order. Accordingly,the Criminal Revision is dismissed. Sd/- Asst.Registrar (CS III ) /true copy/Sub Asst. RegistrarAPTo 1. The Assistant Commissionerof Income Tax, Chennai. 2. The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (EO-I)Egmore, Chennai Copy toThe Section OfficerCriminal Section,High Court, Madras Crl.RC.No.1219/2010 AK (CO)kk 9/2