9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 1113X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... side the order of the Income Tax Tribunal and stated that no further proceedings are pending against the parties and that order of the Division Bench had not been taken up further in appeal by the department/revenue. Also affirmed by the learned Counsel that the complaint had been preferred only consequent to the order of the Appellate Tribunal. But, as it turned out, that particular order of the Tribunal had been set aside by the Divison Bench of this Court. Find every reason to interfere with further progress of E.O.C.C now pending of the file the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate/E.O - I, Egmore, insofar as the petitioners/A1 to A3 are concerned and direct the same to be quashed - present Criminal Original Petition i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had been levied. 4. Questioning this imposition of penalty, the assessee went forward through the process and finally went before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, where the penalty was confirmed. 5. On the basis of the order of the Appellate Tribunal, a complaint had been lodged before the competent Magistrate Court, which had been taken cognizance, as aforesaid, as E.O.C.C.No.68 of 2013 by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Egmore), Economic Offences Court - I, Chennai. 6. The assessee did not rest with that. He, then, came before this Court in T.C.(Appeal) No.213 of 2013 and by judgment, dated 01.07.2013, Division Bench of this Court had thought it necessary to interfere with the order of the Appellate Tribun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... our request for credit for seized cash adjusted and correct computation of interest u/s 234 A,B and 234 C have been taken care of. As such, you are liable to pay the sum of ₹ 31,95,144/- along with 220(2)/Rule-5 interest. As per High Court order, the penalty demand stands revised to 'Nil' You are requested to pay the balance demand of ₹ 31,95,144/- along with interest u/s 220(2)/Rule-5 immediately to avoid coercive action. 9. Mr.P.M.Subramaniam, learned Counsel for the petitioner placed much reliance on the order of the Division Bench of this Court, which had, directly, interfered with the facts as found by the Appellate Tribunal. 10. The order of the Tribunal was not interfered with on a point of law, but o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
