TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court Upholds Rejection of Discharge Request in Tax Evasion Case</h1> <h3>M/s. Sai Logistics Private Limited, Lily Ignesh Mary, Ravichandiran Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax</h3> M/s. Sai Logistics Private Limited, Lily Ignesh Mary, Ravichandiran Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - TMI Issues:Petition for discharge under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C in a case of non-filing of Income Tax return leading to prosecution under Section 276 CC of the Income Tax Act.Analysis:The petitioners, accused in a case before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, were charged under Section 276 CC of the Income Tax Act for failing to file the return of income on time for the assessment year 2014-2015. The petitioners sought discharge under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C, which was rejected by the Trial Court, leading to the present petition before the High Court.The petitioners argued that even in cases where Chapter XIX B applies, accused can be discharged under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C without examining witnesses. However, the Court clarified that such power can only be exercised if the allegations are groundless, emphasizing that even strong suspicion is enough to frame charges, citing a Supreme Court precedent.The petitioners contended that they were not liable to pay any Income Tax and claimed that the Income Tax Department owed them a refund. They argued that the non-filing of the return should not lead to prosecution. The Court noted this as a disputed question of fact unsuitable for determination under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C.The Court found prima facie materials in the complaint of the Income Tax Department to take cognizance of the offense and issue process, which the Trial Court had correctly done. As there were no grounds to discharge the accused under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C, the petition was closed with the direction for the respondent to produce witnesses for examination within three months before the Trial Court. The petitioners were granted the option to seek discharge under Section 245(1) Cr.P.C after the prosecution witness is examined, maintaining the legal process.In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Trial Court's decision, emphasizing the need for a proper examination of evidence and witnesses before considering discharge under Section 245 Cr.P.C in cases involving non-filing of Income Tax returns leading to prosecution under the Income Tax Act.
TaxTMI 