9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 810X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osecution 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e accused, Crl.M.P.No.23 of 1993 was filed under Section 218 of Cr.P.C., by the accused for clubbing of E.O.C.C.No.182 of 1991 along with E.O.C.C.No.181 of 1991 since the issues relating to the complaints were the same in both the cases. The said petition was allowed by the learned Magistrate on 28.01.1993 on a No objection endorsed by the complainant. Accordingly, the cases were clubbed and evidence was recorded jointly, charges were framed under the above Sections with 2 counts on each of the said charge. Thereafter, the witnesses were cross examined. 4(ii) The complainant's counsel filed a memo for reasons stated herein praying the lower Court to frame separate charges in both the cases and also an application in Crl.M.P.No.1015 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4(vi) The First accused Company was having their Research and Development wing at Padappai and Thiruvottiyur and was recognized by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) under Section 25(1) (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. As suggested by the study team of ICAR, the accused Company wanted to have a Centralised Laboratory within the City of Madras for its Process and Development work and accordingly the above mentioned property was purchased. But the said claim was rejected by the Assessing Officer mainly on the ground that the property was purchased barely 4 days before the completion of the Assessment year on 30.06.1982 and therefore, it could not have been used for the Scientific Research as claimed. The accused submits that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 and there is nothing between for coming forward prompting the complainant to file the present application. The present application is filed to frame additional charge based upon the additional evidence of P.W.7 is not maintainable. 6. Mr.L.Murali Krishan, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the Income Tax, relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr.Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh Ors in Crl.A.No.1934 of 2019. 7. From the records, it is seen that for the Assessment Year relating to 1983-84 and 1984-85 of E.O.C.C.Nos.181 182 of 1991, as he moved by the complainant and it has reached the stage of 313 questioning. At this juncture, the present application is filed and it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he lower Court record reveals that as per Ex.P.44, P.W.7 has stated that demand notice in ITCP.No.1 dated 04.03.1988 was issued for Assessment Year 1983-84, directing the defaulter of company to pay the arrears within 15 days. As per Exs.P.45 P.46, the accused defaulter company was issued notices for payment of interest under Section 220(2) for the Assessment Year 1983-1984. Since, it is framing of additional charge, I am imposing self-restriction upon myself, except to say that the factum of private notice was issued or not, it is the matter for trial. With regard to the proposed charge, I find that the facts are in common for both offences under Section 276(C)(1) and 276(C) (2) of Income Tax Act. 11. The main E.O.C.C.Nos.181 and 18 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
