2025 (9) TMI 657
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erein is the accused in C.C.No.11 of 2016 pending on the file of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai. The respondent/complainant represented by the Income Tax Officer, filed a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., against the petitioner for not filing her income tax returns for the financial year 2012 - 2013, thereby allegedly committing offences punishable under Section 139(1), r/w. Sections 276, 276C(1) and 276CC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is the case of the complainant that despite the sale of immovable property situated at Krishnagiri during the financial year 2012 - 2013 for a consideration of Rs. 1 Crore, the petitioner failed to file her return within the time prescribed under Section 139(1) of the Act. C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....culpable mental state and the burden lies on the accused to rebut the same. Findings of the Trial Court:- 5.The learned Trial Court dismissed the discharge petition on the grounds that the petitioner appeared and participated in the proceedings and the matter had progressed to the stage of P.W.1's examination. The objections raised by the petitioner related to territorial jurisdiction and validity of sanction, both of which are matters of evidence, to be decided only at trial. Prima facie materials exist to proceed against the accused, and Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. does not mandate the discharge in the present scenario. Against which, the present Revision Case is filed. Grounds for Revision:- 6.The Criminal Revision Case is filed, on the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....State of Andhra Pradesh [AIR 1979 SC 677], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that prosecution without valid sanction is void ab initio. Thus, the inclusion of charges beyond the scope of the sanction makes the complaint legally untenable at the threshold. 6.4.Presumption under Section 278E - While Section 278E of the Income Tax Act provides for a presumption of culpable mental state, the same is rebuttable. In Prakash Nath Khanna v. CIT [(2004) 266 ITR 1 (SC)], it was held that mere late filing of returns does not absolve an assessee of criminal liability. However, whether the delay was wilful or due to bona fide reasons is a matter for trial, not summary rejection at discharge stage. 6.5.Delay in Filing Discharge Petition - The learned ....