9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 1113X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Case. 2. E.O.C.C.No.68 of 2013 had been preferred by the respondent/complainant alleging offences under Sections 276CC, 276C(1) and 276C(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2005-2006/financial year 2004-2005. 3. In the complaint, it had been stated that the present petitioners, A2 and A3 are partners of A1. It had been stated that there was search and seizure operations on 26.10.2005 under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the premises of the second petitioner/A2. It is claimed that various incriminating documents had been seized. Thereafter, the returns of the income for the assessment year 2005-2006 should have been filed on or before 31.08.2005. It was actually filed only on 30.06.2006. In view of that fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fact herein that the search is one being in the residential premises of the partner, there being no recovery of either cash or any amount seized from the assessee and there being no allegation that the books of accounts showed inaccurate particulars of income or concealed the particulars of income, the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the same is set aside. 14. In the result, the Tax Case Appeal is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P is closed." 8. Subsequent, to the order of the Division Bench, the Tax Recovery Officer, Central - II, Chennai, by a letter, dated 15.11.2014 had, in my opinion, very prudently, stated as follows:- "As per rectification order dated 10.07.2012 the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the department/revenue. 12. It is 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. 13. In view of that one particular fact itself, I find every reason to interfere with further progress of E.O.C.C.No.68 of 2013, 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. 14. With the above said observations, the present Criminal Original Petition is allowed and E.O.C.C.No.68 of 2013 on the file of the Additional Chief Metr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
