MRS. NOORJAHAN Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.2616 of 2020 is the Director of M/s.AMK Solutions Pvt Limited and the petitioners in Crl.O.P No.2781 of 2020 is the Company and its Directors.

(2.) Complaint for prosecution filed by the Income Tax Department alleging that, the petitioners have wilfully attempted to evade payment of Income Tax for the Assessment Year 2017-2018 and thereby, committed offence under Sec. 276 C (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The said complaint has being taken on file by the Learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court in E.O.C.C.132/2019. Stating that, the tax payable by the petitioners for the Assessment Year 2017-18 was paid well before the issuance of show cause notice and same was intimated to the authorities, without applying the mind and not considering the payment of tax with interest, sanction to prosecute granted and the private complaint came to be filed suppressing the factum of payment of tax much prior to sanction to prosecute. Hence, these two petitions are filed to quash the complaint on the ground that, there is a lack of ingredient to prosecute the petitioners under sec. 276 C (2), besides suppression of fact and non- application of mind.

(3.) The un-controverted facts of the case is that, M/s.AMK Solutions Pvt Limited is an Income Tax Assessee having PAN No:AAHCA2131L. For the Assessment Year 2017-2018 they have filed self assessment return on 31/10/2017 declaring the income and tax payable. However, the tax admitted to be payable not remitted by the assessee along with the returns, which is the requirement of the law under Sec. 140 A of Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee, after a delay of 4 ' months, has remitted a sum of Rs.6,85,462.00 towards the tax and interest payable. While so, the sanction to prosecute issued by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Chennai and based on the sanction to prosecute, complaint filed on 28/07/2019.