2021 (11) TMI 810 - HC - Income Tax

Alteration of charge - main charges for the offence under Section 276(C)(1), after examination of P.W.7, in connection with the very same Assessment Year for non payment of Tax, charge under Section 276(C)(2) Income Tax Act was now sought to be added by way of alteration of charge - HELD THAT - It is not disputed that sanction under Section 279 (1) of Income Tax Act is already been granted and sanctioned for the offence under Section 276(C)(1) and other offences. Since the expression unless the sanction had been already obtained for a prosecution on the same facts as those on which, the altered or added charge is found , new or fresh sanction is not required, as contemplated under Section 216(5) of Cr.P.C., is present. As stated supra, the Assessment Year is one and the same. Initial charge is for evasion of tax. Now, by way of alteration of charge, it is included to add evasion of payment of tax and hence, we do not find any error in the order passed by the Special Sessions Judge, in allowing the application. Stage of the case - According to the petitioner, the matter is posted for argument, at this stage, whether, this type of nature of the petition can be entered - HELD THAT - The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr.Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh Ors. 2020 (1) TMI 1412 - SUPREME COURT has held that the stage of the proceedings is irrelevant for alteration of the charge and hence, I find no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Framing of additional charges under Section 276C(2) of the Income Tax Act after 26 years of prosecution.
2. Maintainability of the application to frame additional charges based on additional evidence.
3. Legal validity of the application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. to examine additional witness.
4. Consideration of the stage of the case for entering such petitions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The judgment deals with the issue of framing additional charges under Section 276C(2) of the Income Tax Act after 26 years of prosecution. The revision petitioner challenged the order passed by the Magistrate allowing the framing of additional charges based on new evidence. The petitioner argued that the application filed by the prosecution after such a long period is not maintainable. The court examined the facts of the case, including the history of the complaints and the nature of the charges, to determine the legal sustainability of framing additional charges after such a significant lapse of time.

2. The second issue addressed in the judgment is the maintainability of the application to frame additional charges based on additional evidence. The complainant filed an application to frame an additional charge under Section 276C(2) of the Income Tax Act for non-payment of tax arrears after examining a new witness. The petitioner contended that since the charge of non-payment of tax existed when the complaint was originally filed in 1991, there was no new development prompting the filing of the application. The court analyzed the timeline of events, the relevance of the new evidence, and the legal grounds for allowing such additional charges to be framed at a later stage of the proceedings.

3. The judgment also delves into the legal validity of the application under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) to examine an additional witness. The complainant sought to examine a new witness, P.W.7, to introduce additional evidence related to tax recovery for certain assessment years. The court scrutinized the necessity and admissibility of this additional evidence, considering the stage of the prosecution, the relevance of the new witness, and the impact of such evidence on the framing of additional charges under the Income Tax Act.

4. Lastly, the judgment discusses the consideration of the stage of the case for entering petitions related to framing additional charges or examining additional witnesses. The petitioner raised concerns about the timing of such applications, particularly when the case had reached a certain stage. The court referred to a relevant judgment by the Supreme Court to address the petitioner's argument and concluded that the stage of the proceedings is not a bar to alterations of charges if legally permissible. The court dismissed the criminal revision petitions, emphasizing the legal validity of the orders passed by the lower court and the relevance of the new evidence and charges in the ongoing prosecution proceedings.