G GOPI Vs. G THIYAGARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the accused in C.C. No. 109 of 2001, on the file of Judicial Magistrate No. II, Metturdam, and the proceedings against him were initiated by the respondent for offences punishable under ss. 276C and 277 of the IT Act, 1961, in respect of the asst. yr. 1996-97.

(2.) IN the complaint filed by the respondent, it is stated that the petitioner is a salaried employee and is assessed to income-tax and that for the asst. yr. 1996-97, he filed his return of income on 16th May, 1997, declaring an income of Rs. 85,812, after showing a loss of Rs. 15,550 under the head "House property". This loss of Rs. 15,550 is computed by the petitioner by claiming payment of interest on borrowals for construction of house property. The return of the petitioner was processed under s. 143(1) and a refund of Rs. 4,587 was granted on 20th June, 1997. The complainant has further averred that on subsequent enquiry, it was found that the accused/petitioner did not own any house property at all, but had claimed bogus interest payments on bogus borrowals and the loss of Rs. 15,550 shown is also a bogus one and he has fraudulently obtained tax deducted at source refund amount of Rs. 4,587. It is further stated that later, the accused/petitioner admitted his bogus claim and returned the said claim under a challan dt. 3rd March, 1999, to the Government and a show-cause notice was issued to the accused/petitioner asking him to show-cause as to why prosecution proceedings should not be initiated for the fraudulent claim made by him. The complainant has, therefore, filed the complaint for offences under ss. 276C and 277 of the IT Act for the asst. yr. 1996-97, after obtaining sanction.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the learned Magistrate ought to have given an opportunity to the petitioner to recall P.Ws. 1 and 2 to cross-examine them. I have perused the order and heard learned senior special public prosecutor for income-tax cases.