Jayashree v. The Income-tax Officer Non-Corporate Ward-11(4), Chennai
[Citation -2020-LL-0716-3]

Citation 2020-LL-0716-3
Appellant Name Jayashree
Respondent Name The Income-tax Officer Non-Corporate Ward-11(4), Chennai
Court HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 16/07/2020
Assessment Year 2013-14
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags non-filing of return • immovable property • competent court
Bot Summary: So far as the second ground is concerned, we are of the view that the High Court while hearing the application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. had no jurisdiction to appreciate the statement of the witnesses and record a finding that there were inconsistencies in their statements and there was no prima facie case made out against respondent No.2. In our view, this could be done only in the trial while deciding the issues on the merits or/and by the Appellate Court while deciding the appeal arising out of the final order passed by the Trial Court but not in Section 482 Cr.P.C. proceedings. After perusing the impugned order and on hearing the submissions made by the learned senior counsels on both sides, we are of the view that the impugned order passed by the High Court is not sustainable. In a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the High Court has recorded findings on several disputed facts and allowed the petition. The very fact that the High Court, in this case, went into the most minute details, on the allegations made by the appellant-C.B.I., and the defence put- forth by the respondent, led us to a conclusion that the High Court has exceeded its power, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 20. 3252 of 2017 High Court at this stage, when the matter has been taken cognizance by the Competent Court, is completely incorrect and uncalled for. The petitioner is at liberty to raise all the grounds before the trial Court.


Crl.O.P.No. 3252 of 2017 IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 16.07.2020 CORAM HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.O.P.No.3252 of 2017 and Crl.M.P.Nos.2346 and 2347 of 2017 Mrs.Jayashree ... Petitioner Vs Income Tax Officer Non-Corporate Ward 11(4) Kanmani Building No.611, Anna Salai Chennai 600 006. ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying to call for entire records in EOCC No.161 of 2016 on file of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore (E.O-II), Allikulam Road, Chennai and quash all further proceeding against accused. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Rameshkumar For Respondent : Mr.L.Murali Krishnan Special Public Prosecutor 1/9 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No. 3252 of 2017 ORDER This petition has been filed to quash all further proceedings in EOCC No.161 of 2016 on file of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore (E.O-II), Allikulam Road, Chennai, as against petitioner/accused. 2. learned Counsel appearing for petitioner would submit that respondent has filed complaint against petitioner for offence under Section 276 CC of Income Tax Act alleging that accused during assessment year 2013-2014 sold property for sum of Rs.1,05,60,000/- (Rupees One Crore Five Lakhs and Sixty Thousand only) and against which, she purchased immovable property for sum of Rs.1,55,00,000/- (One Crore and Fifty Five Lakhs only) but failed to file her return of income for assessment year 2013-2014 and even after respondent/complainant issued notice on 06.07.2015 and again on 26.04.2016, calling upon petitioner/accused to file her return of income, she failed to file her return of income and hence, show cause notice was issued on 29.04.2016 and upon receipt of same, petitioner/accused 2/9 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No. 3252 of 2017 submitted her return on 24.05.2016 stating that she had reinvested entire sale consideration in residential property and therefore, income was exempted from tax under Section 54 F of Income Tax Act and there was no taxable income. However, respondent/complainant has filed present complaint for non-filing of return by petitioner/accused alleging that inspite of exemption, it was obligatory on part of petitioner/accused to file return of income and then claim exemption. Hence petitioner/accused has filed this petition to quash all further proceedings in EOCC No.161 of 2016. 3. learned Special Public Prosecutor would submit that trial has already been commenced and some of prosecution witnesses have already been examined and case is posted for further evidence on side of prosecution. 4. Heard Mr.P.Ramesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Mr.L.Murali Krishnan, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent. 3/9 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No. 3252 of 2017 5. It is relevant to rely upon judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in Crl.A.No.579 of 2019 dated 02.04.2019 in case of Devendra Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Anr., as follows:- " 12. So far as second ground is concerned, we are of view that High Court while hearing application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. had no jurisdiction to appreciate statement of witnesses and record finding that there were inconsistencies in their statements and, therefore, there was no prima facie case made out against respondent No.2. In our view, this could be done only in trial while deciding issues on merits or/and by Appellate Court while deciding appeal arising out of final order passed by Trial Court but not in Section 482 Cr.P.C. proceedings. 13. In view of foregoing discussion, we allow appeal, set aside impugned order and restore aforementioned complaint case to its original file for being proceeded with on merits in accordance with law. 4/9 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No. 3252 of 2017 6. Recently, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dealing in respect of very same issue in Crl.A.No.1572 of 2019 dated 17.10.2019 in case of Central Bureau of Invstigation Vs. Arvind Khanna, wherein, it has been held as follows: 19. After perusing impugned order and on hearing submissions made by learned senior counsels on both sides, we are of view that impugned order passed by High Court is not sustainable. In petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., High Court has recorded findings on several disputed facts and allowed petition. Defence of accused is to be tested after appreciating evidence during trial. very fact that High Court, in this case, went into most minute details, on allegations made by appellant-C.B.I., and defence put- forth by respondent, led us to conclusion that High Court has exceeded its power, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 20. In our view, assessment made by 5/9 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No. 3252 of 2017 High Court at this stage, when matter has been taken cognizance by Competent Court, is completely incorrect and uncalled for. 7. Further Hon'ble Supreme Court of India also held in order dated 02.12.2019 in Crl.A.No.1817 of 2019 in case of M.Jayanthi Vs. K.R.Meenakshi & anr, as follows: "9. It is too late in day to seek reference to any authority for proposition that while invoking power under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing complaint or charge, Court should not embark upon enquiry into validity of evidence available. All that Court should see is as to whether there are allegations in complaint which form basis for ingredients that constitute certain offences complained of. Court may also be entitled to see (i) whether preconditions requisite for taking cognizance have been complied with or not; and (ii) whether allegations contained in complaint, even if accepted in entirety, would not constitute offence alleged. .............. 6/9 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No. 3252 of 2017 13. look at complaint filed by appellant would show that appellant had incorporated ingredients necessary for prosecuting respondents for offences alleged. question whether appellant will be able to prove allegations in manner known to law would arise only at later stage...................." above judgments are squarely applicable to this case and as such, points raised by petitioner cannot be considered by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 8. In view of above discussion, quash petition cannot be entertained at this stage and this Court is not inclined to quash proceedings in EOCC No.161 of 2016 on file of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore (E.O-II), Allikulam Road, Chennai. petitioner is at liberty to raise all grounds before trial Court. personal appearance of petitioner is dispensed with and she shall be represented by counsel after filing appropriate application. However, petitioner shall be present before Court at time of furnishing of 7/9 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No. 3252 of 2017 copies, framing charges, questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and at time of passing judgment. However, considering that EOCC is of year 2016, trial Court is directed to complete trial within period of six months from date of receipt of copy of this Order. 9. Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed. Crl.M.P.No.2346 of 2017 is closed and Crl.M.P.No.2347 of 2017 is disposed of with above directions. 16.07.2020 Internet:Yes Index:Yes/no mra To 1. Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore (E.O-II), Allikulam Road, Chennai 2. Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. 8/9 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No. 3252 of 2017 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J, mra Crl.O.P.No.3252 of 2017 and Crl.M.P.Nos.2346 and 2347 of 2017 16.07.2020 9/9 http://www.judis.nic.in Jayashree v. Income-tax Officer Non-Corporate Ward-11(4), Chennai
Report Error