ANIL KUMAR SINHA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since in all these batch cases common points are involved, with the consent of the parties, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. In all these cases common points have been raised, as such, in order to avoid repetition of facts, the facts of only one case (Crl. Misc. No. 17189 of 2011) are being incorporated.

(2.) The first point that has been raised on behalf of the petitioner is as to whether the prosecution under section 276CC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter, in short, referred to as "the Act"), is permissible, when the Settlement Commission, while deciding the case has granted immunities for penalty. Another point that has been raised is that the complaint petition does not disclose the amount of evasion of tax and in the absence of statement of tax, and in the absence of the amount evaded, the proceeding under section 276CC of the Act is an abuse of process of the court. The third point which arises for consideration is as to whether if a person wilfully fails to furnish the return in due time or even after giving notice, is that sufficient to launch prosecution, in the absence of statement, the tax payable by him does exceed Rs. 3,000.

(3.) In all these cases, the facts are common but separate cases have been filed for non-furnishing of return of tax for different assessment years and, as such, to understand the facts, the following facts are relevant for proper appreciation of the case.