9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 690X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... abad, registered for the offences punishable under Section 276 C (2) read with 278 B of the Income Tax Act, 1961(for short 'the Act'). 2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 2/de facto complainant, who is the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad, lodged a complaint against the petitioners/accused Nos. 1 to 5 stating that petitioner No. 1 i.e., M/s S.R.S. Projects, represented by its Managing Partner i.e., petitioner No. 2, is running construction business etc., and petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 are the partners of petitioner No. 1-Company and they are responsible for the day to day affairs of the company. On 31.11.2014, the said company filed original return of income for the Assessment year 2014-15 declaring the total income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ompany and there was no willful evasion of tax by petitioner No. 1-Company. Hence, prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioners. 5. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the Judgment of Madras High Court in M/s. Bejan Singh Eye Hospital Pvt. Ltd vs. Income Tax Department Crl.O.P.(MD)No. 13383 of 2019 decided on 12.03.2020, wherein it is held in paragraph No. 5, as follows: "5. The issue is no longer res integra. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner drew my attention to the decision made by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in Crl.P. No. 4891 of 2014, dated 14.06.2019. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the aforesaid decision held as follows: "In the instant case, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at it can be done only in the course of trial and cannot be decided in a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the criminal petition. 7. Having regard to the rival submissions made by both the learned counsel and having gone through the material available on record, it is to be noted that the prime allegation against the petitioners is that without paying the tax they filed returns, as such, the office of the respondent has initiated assessment proceedings and directed petitioner No. 1 to pay a sum of Rs. 28,51,270/-. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that it is the mistake of auditors and they are under the impression that they paid the tax amount, as such, they filed the returns. Wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
