TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 134X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that:- The very non-filing of the return cannot be a reason for launching a prosecution against the petitioners. In the opinion of this Court, this is a disputed question of fact which cannot be gone into in proceedings under Section 245 (2) Cr.P.C. On a reading of the complaint of the Income Tax Department, there are prima facie materials to take cognizance of the offence and issue process whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... II, at Egmore at Allikulam, Chennai for the offence under Section 276 CC of the Income Tax Act on the private complaint lodged by the Income Tax Department. 2.It is the case of the department that for the Accounting year ending 31.03.2013, the petitioner company was required to pay Income Tax for the assessment year 2014 2015 and that he had failed to file the return of income on time. Hence, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gations are groundless. It is a trite law that even a strong suspicion is enough to frame the charge as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Bureau of India Vs. K.Narayana Rao (2012) 9 SCC 512 . 6.Mr.S.Senthilnathan contended that the petitioners were not liable to pay any Income Tax and that it is the Income Tax Department which has to refund certain amounts to the petitioner co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
