A Y PRABHAKAR KARTHA HUF Vs. ASST CIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE applications have been filed for quashing the proceedings in EOCC Nos. 346 of 1993, 347 of 1993, 348 of 1993, 349 of 1993, 65 of 1992, 66 of 1992, 350 of 1993, 351 of 1993 and 353 of 1993 respectively on the file of the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Economic Offence II, Egmore, Chennai.

(2.) THE only ground by learned counsel for the petitioner in these applications is that there is no delay in the filing of the returns and as soon as he was served with notice under S. 148 of the IT Act, 1961, on 21st March, 1990, he immediately filed the same on March 30,1990, without any delay and as such, the prosecution cannot be maintained.

(3.) IT is also observed in the said order that it would be for the defence to prove that there was no such a mental state and that the question could not be gone into in the proceedings under S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The said case has been reported in A.Y. Pmbhakar (HUF) vs. Asst. CIT (supra). Without doing so, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the fresh applications raising the very same point inclusive of the point with reference to the notice under s. 148(1).