Santosh Kumar Chourasia v. Union Of India

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 706 of 2019 Santosh Kumar Chourasia Versus … ... Petitioner 1.Union of India through the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Revenue Building, Patna, Bihar. 2.Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Dhanbad … … Opp. Party(s) -------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN -------- (Through Video Conferencing) ------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Singh, Advocate For the State : Ms. Amrita Sinha, Advocate -------- Order No. 03: Dated: 17[th] June 2020Per Ananda Sen, J.: 1.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Opposite Party through video conferencing. They have no complain with respect to the audio and video clarity and quality. 2.The petitioner in this application has challenged the order dated 18.11.2017 passed by the Spl. Judge Economic Offences, Dhanbad in connection with C.O. Case No. 12 of 2017. By virtue of the aforesaid order cognizance has been taken for the offence under section 276 CC and 278 B of the Income Tax Act and the petitioner has been summoned. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order is non-speaking. He submits that nothing has been mentioned as to what are the materials which necessitates issuing summons to this petitioner. He in support of his contention refers to the judgment of this Court passed in the case of Amresh Kr. Dhiraj & Ors. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. reported in 2020 (1) JLJR 199 . 3.Ms. Amrita Sinha, learned counsel appears for the opposite parties and submits that it is an admitted case that the petitioner has not filed his return within time. 4.After going through the impugned order, I find that though the court below has mentioned that he has found prima facie material against the petitioner but what are the prima facie materials to take cognizance and to summon the petitioner has not been mentioned in the impugned order. In a mechanical manner, the impugned order has been passed. Now considering the submissions of the petitioner and the judgment cited above by the counsel for the petitioner, I am inclined to allow this application. The order dated 18.11.2017 passed by learned passed by the Spl. Judge Economic Offences, Dhanbad in connection with C.O. Case No. 12 of 2017 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the court below for passing order afresh. 5.The Cr.M.P., thus, stands allowed. MM (ANANDA SEN, J.)