TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (11) TMI 810
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ditional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Economic Offences I, Egmore, Allikulam, Chennai, in Crl.M.P.Nos.3147 & 3148 of 2013, respectively in E.O.C.C.Nos.181 and 182 of 1991, respectively. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel for the Income Tax and after perusal of the order, the chequed history of the case is as under: 4(i) originally two complaints were filed against the accused herein and others in E.O.C.C.Nos.181 and 182 of 1991, for the offences under Sections 276C(1), 277 and 278B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Sections 120B, 193, 196, 420 read with 511 of IPC for 2 Assessment years namely 1983-84 and 1984-85 respectively. On appearance of the accused, Crl.M.P.No.23 of 1993 was fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n after 26 years of persecution is unsustainable in law and is liable to be set aside. 4(v) the allegation in the complaint filed in 1991 was that the petitioner was in the trade of manufacturing and sale of Pesticides and Chemicals for agricultural purpose and was also engaged in Research activities. On 30.06.1983, the petitioner filed return of Income for the Assessment year 1983-84 claiming a loss of Rs. 5,74,033/- wherein a Capital Expenditure of Rs. 1,24,10,880/- was claimed on Scientific Research relating to his business. The above said sum included a claim of Rs. 59,88,893/- being the cost of purchase of Land and Building at No.62, Spur Tank Road, Chetpet, Chennai. 4(vi) The First accused Company was having their Research and Dev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....plaint or which was not known to the complainant when the complaint was originally filed. 4(viii) all along the accused have defended himself based upon the original charge of evasion and after 26 years when the case was to conclude by itself, the application by the complainant to frame charge for nonpayment of tax would amount to an endless prosecution on the part of the complainant. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petition filed by the prosecution is after 26 years of prosecution. 5(i) Second submission: The present charge of non-payment of tax existed even when the complaint was filed originally in the year 1991 and there is nothing between for coming forward prompting the complainant to file the pre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Act and the said charge has been framed on 02.09.2006, that was for evasion of tax. Now by way of additional charge, they want to include the fresh charge under Section 276C(2) of Income Tax Act, 1961 namely evasion of payment of tax. 9. According to the petitioner, the newly examined witness viz., tax recovery officer viz., Gayathri has not issued any notice for recovery of tax, interest, and penalty and notice was also not served, it was disputed by the Income Tax Officer. The said question is the question of fact. It is for the trial, the necessary question has to be confronted with the concern material witness. 10. The 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 wa....