TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (7) TMI 1283
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has been filed challenging the criminal proceedings in E.O.C.No.390 of 2018 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offences), Egmore, Chennai. 2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the respondent prosecuted the petitioners for the offences under Sections 276 C(1) and 277 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2013-14, alleging that the petitioners have not explained the source of income for incurring cash expenses of Rs. 1,19,72,476/-. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the respondent also levied a penalty of Rs. 38,84,470/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the petitioners pref....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....blic Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/Department submitted that the Department reassessed the petitioners for the Assessment Year 2013-14 and since they found certain violation and since the petitioners had not explained the source for incurring certain cash expenses, the same was treated as unexplained expenditure and separate penalty proceedings were also initiated by the Department under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that, though the penalty proceedings were challenged by the petitioners before the Appellate Tribunal and their Appeal was allowed, separate criminal proceedings is maintainable, and hence, she sought for dismissal of this Criminal Original Petition. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e by the Department is without any material. The observations made by the Appellate Tribunal are reproduced hereunder : "7. From the facts of the case, it is evident that the entire addition is made based on certain documents retrieved from the computer. The assessee had explained that the documents were prepared by the employees to estimate certain expenses to be incurred in the project. Though there were certain vouchers prepared and signed by the employees, there was no authentic evidence to establish that the assessee had made cash payments. The persons to whom such payments were made were neither cross examined nor proper investigation made. The Revenue had not made a concrete finding as to whether the assessee had made any ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itioners and in these circumstances, allowed the Appeal. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of J.Sekar v. Directorate of Enforcement (supra) has reproduced the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of West Bengal [(2011) 3 SCC 581 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 721] and the relevant portion is extracted hereunder : "18. In the said sequel of facts, the legal position as it emerges by the judgment of Radheshyam Kejriwal [Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of W.B., (2011) 3 SCC 581 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 721] is relevant in which this Court has culled out the ratio of the various other decisions pertaining to the issue involved and has observed as thus: 12. After referring to various judgments, this ....