2025 (3) TMI 1090 - SCH - Income Tax

Condonation of delay in filing these Special Leave Petitions - HELD THAT - No reasons to be satisfactory nor sufficient in law so as to condone the delay of 467 days in filing these special leave petitions. Hence the application(s) seeking condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently the Special Leave Petitions are also dismissed. However all contentions which are available to the petitioner(s) herein may be advanced before the concerned Magistrate s Court in accordance with law. It is needless to observe that if the relevant contentions are advanced by the petitioner(s) herein the same shall be considered and adjudicated upon by the learned Magistrate. We also clarify that the observations of the High Court in the impugned order(s) are restricted to the consideration of the case under Section 482 of the CrPC only. The Court before which the prosecution against the petitioner(s) is/are pending shall endeavour to dispose of the said case as expeditiously as possible with the cooperation of the parties. Assessment u/s 153A - pendency of re-assessment proceedings - Offence punishable u/s 276CC - unaccounted receipt of money by the petitioner towards remuneration for directing movies - Whether assessment order was barred by limitation? - as per HC 2022 (6) TMI 88 - MADRAS HIGH COURT this Court is of the considered view that respondent/complainant made out prima-facie case to proceed against the petitioner for the offences alleged in the complaint. Section 278 (e) of the Income Tax Act 1961 empowers the Court to presume culpable mental state of the accused unless the accused shows that he had no such mental state with respect to the act charged as an offence in the prosecution. In this view of the matter this Court finds that petitioner shall necessarily face the trial. Criminal Original Petitions dismissed - HELD THAT - As respondent(s) sought some time to file Vakalatnama. Accepting his submission three weeks time is granted to file Vakalatnama. We dispose of these Special Leave Petitions by reserving liberty to the petitioner(s) herein to take up all contentions regarding the maintainability of the prosecution before the concerned Trial Court. It is needless to observe that if such contentions regarding the maintainability of the prosecution are raised by the petitioner(s) herein the same shall be considered in light of the relevant case law and in accordance with law and facts of the present cases.

Summary

In the Supreme Court of India, the bench comprising Hon'ble Mrs. Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish Chandra Sharma addressed the issue of a "gross delay of 467 days" in filing Special Leave Petitions (SLPs). The Court, after reviewing the reasons for the delay, found them "not satisfactory nor sufficient in law" to justify condonation. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was dismissed, leading to the dismissal of the SLPs.The Court noted that all contentions available to the petitioners could be presented before the concerned Magistrate's Court, and such contentions should be "considered and adjudicated upon" by the Magistrate. The observations made by the High Court were clarified to be limited to considerations under Section 482 of the CrPC.For pending SLPs (Crl) Nos. 4264/2024, 3765/2024, 4030/2024, 3888/2024, 3840/2024, and 4024/2024, the Court granted the respondents three weeks to file a Vakalatnama. The Court disposed of these SLPs, allowing petitioners to raise issues regarding the maintainability of the prosecution before the Trial Court, which should be considered in light of relevant case law. All pending applications were disposed of accordingly.