TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (12) TMI 879
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ad with Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, Petitioner is challenging the order dated 25th January 2018 passed by Respondent No.3, sanctioning the prosecution against Petitioner under Section 276C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the said 'Act') and complaint filed against Petitioner in 38th Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ballard Pier, Mumbai bearing CC No.1123 of 2018. 2. Petitioner is engaged in the business of trading in ferrous and non-ferrous metals. Petitioner filed his return of income on 20th March 2010 for Assessment Year 2009-10. By notice dated 28th March 2014, the assessment of Petitioner was re-opened under Section 148 of the said Act. The Assessing Officer on 4th March 2015 passed an order of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....imposing a penalty on Petitioner of Rs. 10,58,440/- which was challenged by Petitioner before the CIT(A) on 2nd May 2018. 8. According to Petitioner, he became aware of the prosecution lodged against him under Section 276C(1) of the said Act when he received a summons dated 29th March 2019, requiring him to appear before the Additional Metropolitan Magistrate on 13th May 2019. 9. Petitioner has, therefore, filed present Petition on 12th July 2021, challenging the order of sanction of prosecution dated 25th January 2018 and filing of complaint bearing CC No.1123 of 2018. 10. Respondents have filed a reply as per order of this Court dated 24th August 2018. Petitioner has filed his affidavit in rejoinder on 22nd September 2021. 11. We have....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....evade any tax, penalty or interest chargeable or [imposable, or under reports his income] under this Act, he shall, without prejudice to any penalty that may be imposable on him under any other provision of this Act, be punishable, (i) in a case where the amount sought to be evaded [or tax on under reported income] exceeds [twenty-five] hundred thousand rupees, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to seven years and with fine; (ii) in any other case, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three months but which may extend to [two] years and with fine." 15. On perusal of the provision, it appears that following ingredients must be fulfilled to attr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... out the reasons in that regard. A perusal of the sanction order clearly indicates that the sanctioning authority appears to have applied its mind to the facts placed before it and considered them and then granted sanction. 16. Laying down the scope of interference by the High Court in matters of quashing of FIR or complaint, the Apex Court, in the leading case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, observed as follows:- "102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under chapter XTV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under article 226 of the inherent powers under Section 482 of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ible to discharge the accused before trial. This is so because it would result in giving finality to the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, without allowing the prosecution or the complainant to adduce evidence to substantiate the same. The converse is, however, not true, because even if trial is proceeded with, the accused is not subjected to any irreparable consequences. The accused would still be in a position to succeed by establishing his defences by producing evidence in accordance with law. There is an endless list of judgments rendered by this Court declaring the legal position that in a case where the prosecution/complainant has levelled allegations bringing out all ingredients of the charge(s) levelled, and have ....