2026 (8) TMI 1838

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he petitioner is a partnership firm doing Engineering and Contract Works. The second accused is the Managing Director of the said firm and he is in-charge of the business and conduct of the said firm. The complainant is a public servant working as Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Dindigul and he has been authorized by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai, to prefer the complaint against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 276CC of the Income Tax Act. Further, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai has also accorded valid sanction order to prosecute the accused for the said offence. The accused M/s.K.P. Construction, who is already an Income Tax assessee and the Managing Partner are liable for filing of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tion under Section 276CC of the Income Tax Act by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai and the accused also had sent a reply dated 23.05.2016 and 09.06.2016 granting extension of time and the reasons mentioned by the accused are not acceptable. The above said act of the accused for non filing of the Return of Income within due time is punishable under Section 276CC of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, filed the complaint. The said complaint was taken on file by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai, and the 3/11 same is pending in CC No.7 of 2016. Now the said proceedings have been challenged by the petitioner. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a partnership firm....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....come Tax. In the appeal, the amount of Rs. 1,02,90,322/- was deleted, since M/s. IVRL and M/s. Chettinadu Cement Corporation had not responded the discrepancies noted for the balance amount of Rs. 55,72,910/-, but ledger accounts were properly submitted for scrutiny. Thereafter, the petitioner also preferred an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal with respect to the disputed addition of Rs. 55,72,910/- and the Income Tax Appellate also confirmed that the closing balance of M/s.IVRC and M/s. Chettinad Cement Corporation as appearing in the book of account of the assessee is found to be genuine. Therefore, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 17,86,300/- with respect to M/s. IVRC and also....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed to file the Return of Income within time and thereby it is punishable under Section 276CC of Income Tax Act. Therefore, filed the complaint. 4.1. During the pending of the complaint, the department reassessed the income tax and issued notice by quantifying amount of Rs. 1,60,55,962/- and the same was challenged before the Commissioner of Income Tax and the same was partly allowed and thereafter, again the petitioner had filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and the same was also allowed. The above said 6/11 orders of the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal are in respect of arrears of tax after reassessment. But they have not filed any Returns for the financial year 2012 - 2013 (assessment year 2013 - 2014). Therefo....