Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2023 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (3) TMI 929 - BOMBAY HIGH COURTOffence u/s 276B read with Section 278B of the Income Tax Act - persons responsible for paying tax as per section 204 of the I.T. Act have committed a default under Section 200 of the I.T. Act, 1961 read with Rule 30 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 - HELD THAT:- As in case of complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 there is no application of mind by the statutory authorities before initiation of the complaint. In the case of prosecution under Income Tax Act, sanction order and the order passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax indicate prima facie application of mind by the statutory authorities before initiation of the complaint under Section 276B read with Section 278B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore respondent No.1 at this stage has made out a sufficient case for proceeding against the petitioner. Contention of the petitioner that he is not residing in India and is resident of Netherlands for Six years Respondent No.1 invited attention to the sanction order which contains address of the petitioner as being resident of Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra. Whether the petitioner was actually residing in Netherland for Six years or not has to be decided at the time of trial of the complaint or at the appropriate stage which is permissible. At this stage, scope of inquiry is to ascertain as to whether the averments in the complaint are sufficient to constitute offences alleged against the petitioner or not. No interference is called for in order of issuance of process.
|